Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

NEW WRIT

For Middlesbrough, East, in the room of the right honourable Hilary Adair Marquand (Chiltern Hundreds).—[Mr. Short.]

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN RHODESIA

Africans (Professional Employment)

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what special arrangements are made to ensure the suitable employment of Northern Rhodesia Africans who qualify in the legal and other professions.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I have asked the Governor what particular steps have been taken, following the Report of the local Committee under the chairmanship of the Chief Justice which advised on entry into and training for the legal profession. I will write to the hon. Member when I have the Governor's reply.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: May I thank my right hon. Friend for that Answer and ask whether he does not agree that for the cause of African advancement, it is vital that those Africans who qualify for the professions should be given every help and encouragement? If I send my right hon. Friend details of a personal case which is rather disturbing, will he look into it?

Mr. Maudling: I certainly agree about the importance of this matter and I will be glad to look into any personal case.

Constitution

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he expects to announce the details of the new Northern Rhodesia Constitution.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will now state his constitutional proposals for Northern Rhodesia.

Mr. Maudling: I hope to make a statement soon.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is a most disappointing reply? Has his attention been drawn to the leading article in The Times today, headed "No more delay", which makes the very valid point that
Every day's delay now darkens the prospect"?
Cannot we have an announcement soon?
Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the longer this goes on the more it seems likely that Sir Roy Welensky's pressure is being successful? What does he mean by "soon"?

Mr. Maudling: I read The Times leading article first thing this morning, as I always do, but I cannot say more than that I hope to make a statement soon. I agree that the sooner it is made, the better, but "soon" is "soon" and I cannot define it in terms of days.

Mr. Thomson: The Opposition have been extremely patient about this. Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that delays are now reaching the stage of being positively dangerous? Cannot he assure the House that he will make a statement during the coming week?

Mr. Maudling: I should like to state an exact time, but I cannot do so at present. I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has said. As I have said before, I recognise the need for an early announcement, but I am anxious to get the right announcement.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the dreary defeatism of the leading article will find little echo in this country?

Mr. Maudling: It is one thing to read The Times: it is another thing to comment on it.

Mr. M. Foot: Has the right hon. Gentleman anything to say about the general suspicion that he wrote the leading article as well as read it?

Mr. Maudling: Internal evidence is against that, because my standards of English are not adequate.

Oral Answers to Questions — NYASALAND

Law and Order

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent murder, other crimes of violence, and crimes involving witchcraft have increased in Nyasaland during the last year, or in the latest convenient period; and whether he will make a statement about law and order in the Protectorate.

Mr. Maudling: There was a slight increase in these crimes between 1960 and 1961. I am circulating comparative statistics in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The Protectorate generally is orderly, and the increase is attributable to increased police coverage in rural areas rather than to any significant deterioration in law and order.

Following are the comparative statistics:


—
Numbers of cases


1960
1961


Murder, manslaughter, infanticide and attempted murder
145
150


Grievous harm and woundings
2,337
2,625


Arson
747
732


Malicious damage
456
491


Witchcraft
31
46

Chief Masula (Resignation)

Commander Donaldson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what were the circumstances which led to the recent resignation of Chief Masula of the Lilongwe District in the Central Province of Nyasaland.

Mr. Maudling: Chief Masula resigned because he was no longer acceptable as Chief to his people and hence could not effectively administer his area.

Commander Donaldson: While recognising my right hon. Friend's reply, may I ask whether it is not the fact that chieftainships in Nyasaland and in other parts are by the consent of the people and that it is implicit that the chiefs rule by the agreement of their people? Is not it also the fact that in this case this Chief, who had objected to the Malawi Congress Party at the Lancaster House

Conference, was shortly thereafter subjected to public humiliation which created circumstances that caused him to resign? As Nyasaland is under the protection of the Crown, is it not the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government to see that the system of chieftainship and the maintenance of chiefs is protected? Will my right hon. Friend take steps to do whatever he can to see that the chiefs who are at present opposing the Malawi Party are not coerced to a point where they are humiliated and lose the confidence of their people?

Mr. Maudling: I should like to look into the point about humiliation. I am not altogether happy about the position of chiefs in Nyasaland. My hon. and gallant Friend is quite right—unless they retain the support of their own people they cannot effectively carry out their duties as chiefs.

Ritual Murder

Dr. D. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT particulars of cases of ritual murder that have occurred in Nyasaland during the past twelve months.

Mr. Maudling: There have been two cases of so-called ritual murder in the past twelve months. I have asked the Governor for particulars and will circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT later.

Dr. Johnson: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he agrees that these reports are extremely disturbing, and that, despite what he has said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison), these are illustrations of the danger of allowing primitive people premature self-government?

Mr. Maudling: I should not like to draw any deductions from these two particular cases until I have had the details for which I have asked.

Mr. Sorensen: Did the hon. Member for Carlisle (Dr. D. Johnson) refer to murders in this country, which are rather frequent, or in other countries?

Sir G. Nicholson: Is it not time that tribute was paid to the high standard of law and order maintained in Nyasaland at the present time?

Mr. Maudling: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that supplementary question. I did say earlier that the present state of law and order in Nyasaland is satisfactory.

Future

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement about the constitutional future of Nyasaland.

Mr. Maudling: I have nothing to say at present, except that the Constitution which was introduced last summer is working well. Steps are now being taken, in accordance with the White Paper of August, 1960, to replace the two nominated official members who sit in the Executive Council by elected members.

Mr. Wall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Dr. Banda is alleged to have said on numerous occasions that he wishes Nyasaland to secede? Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether secession is constitutionally possible?

Mr. Maudling: I think that questions of constitutional changes in the Federation are more for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations than for me, but certainly Dr. Banda has made it absolutely clear that his policy is secession, and it was on that policy that he was elected.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL TERRITORIES

Gross Domestic Product

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the combined gross domestic product of the Colonial Territories for 1960; and what annual rate of increase this represents.

Mr. Maudling: The gross domestic product, in 1960, for the Territories for which I am today responsible is estimated at £2,075 million. This represents an annual average rate of increase of about 5½ per cent. over the last five years. Allowing for changes in prices, on the basis of information available for the majority of the Territories, the rate of increase was about 5 per cent.

Mr. Digby: Is this not a little less than before, when the figure was something like 7 per cent.? What steps are

being taken to try to retain the rate of increase?

Mr. Maudling: It is certainly a little less than before, but it is difficult to draw deductions from that fact. Of course, a number of Territories, such as Cyprus and Nigeria, have moved out of the sphere on which statistics are based. I do not think that deductions can be drawn from the figures.

Mr. H. Hynd: Does not that rate of increase compare favourably with the sad rate of increase in this country last year?

Mr. Maudling: I anticipated that supplementary question, but the answer is one for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Sugar (United States Purchasing Policy)

Mr. Leather: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what representations he has made to President Kennedy about the effect of his proposal, that the United States of America should purchase all its sugar on the free world market, on Commonwealth sugar producing countries, especially the West Indies.

Dr. A. Thompson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what representations he has made to the United States of America over their proposed new sugar purchasing policy, particularly as it affects the West Indies.

Mr. Maudling: We are in consultation with the American authorities, to whom we have explained the great importance of these markets to the West Indies.

Mr. Leather: Will my right hon. Friend give the House some assurance that he will leave President Kennedy in no doubt that if this policy were carried out, it would bankrupt the sugar industry in the whole of the West Indian islands, and particularly in Jamaica, where wage standards are highest; and that this is bound to bring about unemployment on a massive scale and cause economic unrest which would be far from offset by the advantages which the State Department considers its policy might bring?

Mr. Maudling: I would not go the whole way with my hon. Friend about the


consequences of the policy. Certainly, it raises a very serious problem for the West Indies, as we have explained quite clearly to the United States authorities, and we are in consultation with them about the problem.

Dr. Thompson: Is the Minister aware that since my Question was put down, it has been revealed that the American Government have stopped all purchases of sugar from Jamaica for the next six months and are preparing long-term barter deals of wheat for sugar, particularly from South American countries? In view of the catastrophe which Jamaica faces, and the fact that she buys £30 million worth of British manufactured goods in a year, is he aware that the economic future of Jamaica cannot be a matter of indifference to Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Maudling: Of course, it is not a matter of indifference. As I said in my original reply, we have explained to the Americans the great importance of this problem to the West Indies, and we are consulting them about it. I do not see what else we can do about it at the moment.

Mr. Leather: My right hon. Friend has said that he cannot go the whole way with me in the views expressed in my supplementary question, which are certainly shared by everybody in the West Indies. Will he say why?

Mr. Maudling: Because I do not think they are fully shared by everybody in the sugar industry. I think the effect of the policy would be serious to Jamaica, but my hon. Friend thought it would bankrupt the industry, and I thought that in that he was going a little too far.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the representations made to America are made at the highest level? Is he aware that if the Americans persist in this policy, it will more than cancel out all the economic aid which Her Majesty's Government are giving at present to the West Indies?

Mr. Maudling: Certainly. We are ensuring that. From the start we asked our Ambassador in Washington to represent the position to the State Department, but we cannot do more at this moment

than consult with the State Department and explain to them the effect of their policy. I agree—as I was myself in the West Indies recently—that these effects can be very serious for the West Indies, unless a proper solution can be found, and our concern at the moment with the Americans is to find a solution.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALTA

Financial Aid

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the total financial help given to Malta in 1961, both as part of the Development Plan and otherwise.

Mr. Maudling: Malta's financial year commences on 1st April and figures relating to the calendar year are not available. The total for the financial year ended 31st March, 1961, was £4·05 million, of which £3·3 million was for development. The latest estimated total for the year ending 31st March, 1962, is £3·12 million, of which £2·7 million is for development. These figures exclude sums advanced to Messrs. Bailey (Malta) Ltd. in connection with the conversion of the Dockyard.

Mr. Digby: Now that the election is over and it looks as though there will be a more stable political future for Malta—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—will this aid be reconsidered?

Mr. Maudling: Any question of future aid will have to be discussed when the new Malta Government is constituted, which I hope will be soon.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Did I hear the right hon. Gentleman aright—that the aid during the coming financial year will be lower than the rate of aid last year? Is not this going quite the wrong way about it?

Mr. Maudling: The rate in the current financial year is slightly below, but not very much below, the rate for the preceding year. These year to year comparisons tend, however, to be a little misleading. One cannot draw too much of a deduction from them.

Dockyard (Employment)

Mr. Woodnutt: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will give


an assurance that the level of employment in Malta Dockyard will be maintained during development work.

Mr. Maudling: The contract work is planned so as to involve the minimum dislocation to the yard but I cannot guarantee that there will be no fluctuations of the employment level during this period. I know, however, that the company has this aspect very much in mind.

Mr. Woodnutt: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will give details of the extent to which Bailey (Malta) Limited may use its own direct labour on the Dockyard Development Plan.

Mr. Maudling: The company may undertake with its own labour the work of modifying the fixed assets and services of the Dockyard up to a present limit of £650,000. The company may also use its own labour in the manufacture and installation of plant and equipment, but in the case of items costing over £2,500 only if tenders have been invited and the company's is the lowest.

Mr. Woodnutt: Whilst thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, and bearing in mind that while the redevelopment plan is in progress there are bound to be one or more docks out of action from time to time, may I ask whether he would not be well advised to increase this limit of £2,500 so that if men are put off from working on ships, at least they can be employed on the development programme?

Mr. Maudling: The figure is the result of pretty lengthy negotiations with the company. Different principles are involved here, but I think that we have reached the right figure. If things involve more than £2,500 there should be a tender to ensure that prices are appropriate.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Should it not be the overriding consideration during this redevelopment work that as many jobs as possible should be provided for the workers in Malta?

Mr. Maudling: Yes, Sir, but on the other hand one should make sure that charges for work done are reasonable.

Mr. Awbery: Has the employment position improved or become worse since Messrs. Bailey changed over from the naval dockyard to the commercial dockyard?

Mr. Maudling: I should need notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — SWAZILAND

Constitution

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the proposals of Her Majesty's Government for the revised Constitution of Swaziland will be announced.

Mr. Maudling: The Report of the Swaziland Constitutional Committee raised a number of issues requiring further consideration on which I am consulting the High Commissioner. I have in the meantime asked the High Commissioner to arrange for publication, both of the Report and of a Dispatch setting out my own views, so as to facilitate public discussion of these issues in Swaziland before decisions are taken about the new Constitution.

Mr. Brockway: While welcoming that expression of democracy, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he could say when these documents are likely to be published? In the consideration of future plans, will the right hon. Gentleman include the extension of some voting rights to the African population and ensure that in the Legislature the proportions of African and European representatives are in accordance with the population?

Mr. Maudling: I think that there is here a little jumping the gun. I hope to have the report and the dispatch published in the near future. I cannot give the exact date. Then I should like to see a good deal of public discussion in Swaziland of the merits of the various problems before we start crystallising our ideas.

Mr. Brockway: Will the documents be available to hon. Members?

Mr. Maudling: I will certainly see that they are available.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA

Civil Service (Non-Designated Officers)

Dr. King: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will reconsider the position of non-designated civil servants in Kenya, with a view to giving them the protection and conditions of service which obtain for designated civil servants.

Mr. Maudling: I have nothing to add to the Reply made by the Prime Minister on 20th February to a Question by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) concerning the future of non-designated officers serving in Kenya on overseas leave terms.

Dr. King: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of the non-designated men were recruited overseas in exactly the same way as some of the designated men who became designated as a result of the Lidbury revision? Is he aware that the differentiation which he makes in the conditions of service, and in protection if Kenya becomes independent, as between designated and non-designated men, when both are doing exactly the same job, is regarded by the non-designated men as an injustice and a breach of faith and of promises made in documents which they have already submitted to the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Maudling: I cannot accept that there has been any breach of faith. This problem has given me a great deal of concern, but there is a clear distinction between people recruited for service in the Overseas Civil Service generally, that is, in the overseas Territories as a whole, and people recruited by a particular Government for service in that particular Territory. That is the basis of the distinction and I think that it is valid.

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he received a petition from the Civil Service Association of Kenya about protection of the rights and interests of overseas pensionable officers who have been appointed to the service of territorial Governments other than by the selection of the Secretry of State; and if he will make a statement on the reply he sent.

Mr. Maudling: The petition from the Civil Service Association of Kenya to

which the hon. Member refers was received in my Department only on 7th February.
I have nothing to add to the Reply given by the Prime Minister on 20th February to a Question by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) about another petition in the same terms which the Prime Minister has received from the same body.

Mr. Awbery: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the discrimination shown between the designated and non-designated men is creating bad feeling in Kenya? Is he aware that every effort has been made in that Colony to try to bring about a settlement and that the efforts have failed? Does the right hon. Gentleman know, for example, that there is a schoolmaster who receives approximately £1,000 a year while men working under him, who are designated, receive nearly £2,000? Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to remedy that sitution?

Mr. Maudling: I shall be dealing with that matter in answer to the next Question.

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that designated officers of the Kenya Civil Service receive in pay and emoluments more than twice the amount paid annually to non-designated officers who perform the same class of duty, that Asian schoolmasters who are not designated have serving under them designated officers with higher pay, and that this fact creates uneasiness among civil servants; if he will take steps to remedy the situation; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Maudling: Basic salaries in Kenya are common to all serving officers. They were fixed last year on the basis of the Report of the Flemming Commission. Designated officers receive in addition an inducement allowance of about 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. of basic salary, plus education allowances and leave passages, all paid for by Her Majesty's Government under the Overseas Service Aid Scheme. This makes it possible for some junior officers, if designated, to receive more than some senior officers, if they are not designated. These arrangements were approved by


the House when it passed the Overseas Service Act in 1961.

Mr. Awbery: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in a Press release by the Ministry in 1960 an undertaking was given about the position of non-designated men but apparently it has not been carried out? What does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do about it?

Mr. Maudling: I am not aware of that Press release. If the hon. Member will kindly send it to me, I will certainly study it to ensure that nothing has been done which is inconsistent with what we have said in the past.

Dr. King: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the replies which the Prime Minister gave to representations made to him earlier this week seem much more sympathetic than what the right hon. Gentleman has said today? Will he look carefully into the position as put to him by these men?

Mr. Maudling: I have looked into it closely. I have received deputations and I have been concerned about the matter. After seeing the deputations, I have recommended certain courses to the Governments of these Territories. If they do not accept my representations there is nothing I can do about it, because it is their responsibility to decide what the settlement should be.

Mr. Wall: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that in the talks which be had with the staff association in November he agreed that if there should be a major change in the situation—and this action by these Governments is a major change—he would reconvene that conference?

Mr. Maudling: I shall have to look at the record, but I do not recall giving any such undertaking. I think that I have made it clear that, whatever I think to be the right thing, the final decision does not rest with me but with the Governments of the Territories.

Constitutional Conference

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the progress made in the Kenya Constitutional Conference.

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement about the progress of the Constitutional Conference on Kenya.

Mr. Maudling: Press communiqués agreed by the Conference are being issued at the end of each working day, copies of which I am arranging to be placed in the Library. I have nothing further to add about progress at the Conference.

Mr. Stonehouse: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the importance of bringing this Conference to an end as quickly as possible and agreeing to an early date for independence, bearing in mind that the longer the period of uncertainty lasts, the greater is the danger of "funk" money leaving the country and of a general economic rundown?

Mr. Maudling: I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman means by "funk" money. Our purpose at the Conference is to reach agreement on the Constitution. I regard that as being of absolutely fundamental importance and urgency.

Mr. Stonehouse: Will the right hon. Gentleman at least bear in mind the possibility that he will have to impose a decision if a breakdown takes place?

Mr. Maudling: If there cannot be agreement between the parties, then Her Majesty's Government will have to decide on the future. My object now is to reach agreement at the Conference, which is of tremendous importance to everyone who lives in Kenya.

Gifts of Money

Mr. Goodhew: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that large sums of money are being sent to Kenya from Communist countries for subversive purposes; and what steps he proposes taking to put an end to this threat to the security of Kenya.

Mr. Maudling: I have seen persistent reports to this effect. But there is no legal ban on gifts of money entering Kenya and it is difficult to see how one could be made effective.

Mr. Goodhew: Does not my right hon. Friend think it ridiculous that, while the Government and many others from Kenya are doing their best to reach some political solution for the troubles, money should be allowed into Kenya for the express purpose of making that impossible? Has he not heard or read of the recent statement by Mr. Odinga, who even suggested that there was nothing much wrong in Communism for Africa?

Mr. Maudling: I cannot comment on individual statements, particularly if they are made in the Constitutional Conference, which is confidential at present. I do not see how we could take legal powers to stop money going into Kenya from Communist sources. It might well come through Britain itself or through other third countries.

Mr. Shinwell: While far from condoning any Communist interference in Kenya's affairs—if such be the case—so that we may see the whole picture, will right hon. Gentleman, if he makes an inquiry, inform the House about the vast sums of money being sent to Kenya to certain principal persons in the Government party, of which Her Majesty's Government are well aware, as I am?

Mr. Maudling: One cannot prevent gifts of money going into Kenya, from whatever source, to individuals there. I know of no legal way to stop it. But I share my hon. Friend's concern at the development of Communist propaganda in this part of Africa. It is a growing difficulty which we must be prepared to face.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the best way to ensure that the Communists waste their money is to have a speedy and successful conclusion to the Constitutional Conference at Lancaster House?

Mr. Maudling: I entirely agree.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADEN

Schools (Disturbances)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the report of the inquiry into certain disturbances affecting schools and colleges in Aden will be completed and published; whether a committee of managers or a

board of governors is appointed for all educational institutions in Aden, and on what basis; and what has been done to establish parent-teacher organisations in primary and secondary schools.

Mr. Maudling: The report is now being published and I will place a copy in the Library of the House. The answer to the second part is: not for Government schools. Parents' committees exist for Government boys' primary and intermediate schools.

Mr. Sorensen: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him whether he does not agree that it is highly desirable that indigenous Adenese should themselves be involved in responsibility for schools to which their children are going, and that this should be done not only by securing the maximum number of indigenous Adenese on various governing bodies and school committees but also by encouraging the formation of these teacher-parent associations?

Mr. Maudling: I would rather study the report—I have not as yet had a chance to do so—before committing myself on the policies involved. I am very interested in what the hon. Gentleman has suggested.

Mr. Brockway: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any further information about these disturbances? Is he aware that, following the strike of the girls at a girls' college in Aden, messages have been received from the Aden T.U.C. saying that there have been clashes with the police and that tanks have been brought into the streets? What are the facts about this situation?

Mr. Maudling: I think that those statements are probably a little exaggerated. I doubt if tanks have been needed to suppress rebelling students. In particular, the story that the director of education was beaten up and his car was burnt is quite inaccurate. I do not think that it is for me to deny rumours of one kind or another. As I have said, I will place in the Library a copy of the report as soon as possible.

Governor (Talks)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made in the talks between the


Governor of Aden and Ministers from the Federation and Colony; what decisions have been made about accessions to and secessions from the Federation, and closer association between the Protectorates and Aden Colony; and what conditions have been submitted in respect of such closer association by elected representatives in Aden Colony.

Mr. Maudling: Reasonable progress has been made, considering the complexity of the problems involved. The Wahidi Sultanate recently applied to join the Federation. There have been no secessions. The answer to the last two parts of the Question is: None so far.

Mr. Sorensen: Whilst one appreciates the complexity of the situation, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman would agree that there is a good deal of ambiguity about the whole question? One is not quite certain what is required or demanded by the various parties involved. Could he clarify the matter and determine whether there is a genuine desire to link up with the Federation or not?

Mr. Maudling: The Governor, in a speech on 22nd January, said:
Her Majesty's Government consider that there are great advantages for both Colony and Federation in a much closer link between them.

The question of how to start and when is being discussed at the present moment. I do not want to hurry those discussions. I think that they must be thorough.

Oral Answers to Questions — CENTRAL AFRICA

Federation

Mr. Goodhew: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what estimate he has made of the effect upon the economy of Nyasaland of the secession of that territory from the Central African Federation and the withdrawal of the subventions at present paid by the Federal Government.

Mr. Maudling: The financial and economic problems that would arise were Nyasaland to withdraw from the Federation are considerable. They were set out in general terms in paragraphs 57–59 of the Monckton Commission Report.

Mr. Goodhew: Has not my right hon. Friend some accurate estimate? Surely, before the Monckton Commission recommended the possibility of secession, it must have had an estimate put before it? Could he say if this could be made available to the House.

Mr. Maudling: I doubt if we could add at all to what the Monckton Commission said. We can give certain figures of the amount of revenue received by Nyasaland from the Federation, but the economic effects of secession would be widespread. I do not think it is easy to estimate in exact terms, and I do not think we can add further to what the Monckton Commission has said.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Will the Minister bear in mind as a precedent that, when Jamaica expressed a desire to secede from the West Indian Federation, we did not allow the economic costs of this to be the deciding factor?

Mr. Maudling: There is the difference that Jamaica is standing on her own feet, financially.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what consultations there have been with Nyasaland and Barotseland about their future constitutional arrangements in connection with the future of federation in Central Africa.

Mr. Maudling: The future constitutional position of Nyasaland and Barotseland was a subject of discussion during my visit to Central Africa last December. The Litunga's views have been invited on the way in which the new constitutional arrangements for Northern Rhodesia should be applied to Barotseland, and his reply is awaited.

Mr. Thomson: Is the Minister aware that the ill-judged visit by his right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Relations Secretary to Barotseland during the present week has complicated an already difficult situation? Can he give the House some enlightenment as to the nature of his right hon. Friend's talks, since the constitutional future of Barotseland itself is the Colonial Secretary's responsibility?

Mr. Maudling: I do not think the hon. Member should confuse ill-judged rumours with ill-judged visits. So far


as my right hon. Friend's visit is concerned, there is a further Question on the Order Paper later today.

Oral Answers to Questions — THE WEST INDIES

Economic Development

Dr. A. Thompson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what aspects of West Indian economic development Her Majesty's Government is at present tendering advice to West Indian authorities.

Mr. Maudling: On the request of the West Indian authorities concerned, my right hon. Friend, the Secretary for Technical Co-operation, and I are always ready to advise them on any aspect of economic development in our respective spheres.

Dr. Thompson: Is the Minister aware that no permanent, long-term, political solution can be found for the West Indies until the problems of economic development have been solved, and that if we want to salvage a viable, politically purposeful Federation, we must tackle her economic problems immediately and purposefully?

Mr. Maudling: There is a great deal to be said for that point of view.

Mr. S. Silverman: In the event of the proposed measures not succeeding, and in the event of the representations which the Government have made to the United States of America—which the right hon. Gentleman told us about in a previous Answer—also failing, would he then advise his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to withdraw the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill?

Mr. Maudling: It is difficult to imagine a more hypothetical question.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Primary Schools (Modern Languages)

Lieut-Colonel J. K. Cordeaux: asked the Minister of Education if he will consider including the teaching of modern languages in the curriculum of primary education.

The Minister of Education (Sir David Eccles): I welcome the experiments that are being made in primary schools and I am encouraging developments of this kind where suitable teachers are available.

Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: Will my hon. Friend agree that our lack of ability to speak foreign languages, compared with the ability of people in most other countries, is a most serious handicap in the export drive? Would he also agree that —at any rate as far as speech as opposed to writing is concerned—the earlier one starts to learn a foreign language the better, and will he do all in his power to encourage the present experiments?

Sir D. Eccles: In general, I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend, but I have no control over the curriculum. It is clear that the prospect of entry into the Common Market is stimulating foreign language studies and teaching.

Teacher Training Colleges (Places)

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Education what were the main faults in the 1,397 applicants failing for training college places in September, 1961, whose academic qualifications were adequate but who were considered borderline by the Clearing House; and what steps have been taken to encourage these students to remedy their weaknesses and to secure for them places in 1962.

Sir D. Eccles: Five hundred wanted to train for secondary schools when priority has had to be given to good candidates for primary schools. Among the rest the most common defect was, I understand, weakness in English. Colleges and schools normally encourage reasonably promising candidates to remedy their weaknesses and are ready to advise them how to do so, but competition for places is becoming increasingly keen.

Mr. Boyden: This is a confession of failure. If these students are available, steps should be taken to ensure that they are given places. Would not the right hon. Gentleman make arrangements to earmark places for September, 1962, for those candidates who bring themselves up to scratch, and could he ask the local education authorities to take a special


interest in this type of student so that they can come forward in 1962?

Sir D. Eccles: The hon. Gentleman may be glad to know that of the borderline cases in 1960–61 who did not get a place then, 200 have secured a place in 1961–62. I hope that, as far as possible, if the candidates are suitable, those who try once will succeed a second time.

Mrs. White: Can the Minister rest content with a situation in which he appears to have lost 500 potential teachers, because naturally very many of them prefer to take secondary school training rather than primary school training? It is not that our secondary schools are so well staffed. Surely, some emergency measures are justified to deal with this situation? Is it not a fact that our educational position is serious when we are so short of teachers and no fewer than 500 may have been turned away from the profession for good?

Sir D. Eccles: The colleges are crowding up in a very remarkable way, but there is a limit to overcrowding and for the longer term we are now providing a great many new places. I am answering a Written Question by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) about the numbers. I cannot put on one side my responsibility to try to get a balance of teachers for the needs of the schools, and it is the fact that the needs of the primary schools at the moment are the more pressing.

Mrs. Slater: Is not this process continually going on? One year it concerns the primary schools and a few years afterwards the secondary schools. To revert to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden), does not the Minister think that students who did not get in last year will not get in this year and possibly will not get in next year will decide that teaching is not the job for them, since they are getting too old for it? Because the Government are not taking emergency steps, they are not measuring up to the need to acquire the necessary number of teachers.

Sir D. Eccles: The only way to meet the situation, which I agree is disappointing, is to provide more places, and that is what we are doing.

Colleges of Advanced Technology (Teachers)

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Education how many posts in colleges of advanced technology are at present unfilled; in what subjects the vacancies occur; and what steps are being taken to fill them.

Sir D. Eccles: Of the 208 teaching posts unfilled out of a total establishment of 1,776, 106 are in engineering, 51 in mathematics and the sciences, and 51 in other subjects. These vacancies are being constantly advertised in the Press, and the colleges hope that with their change of status to national institutions, and the recent increase in salaries, they will be able to improve their recruitment.

Mr. Boyden: Would the Minister consider renewing his appeal to industry to release suitable engineers and mathematicians? Could not he point out that if these posts are not filled there will not be a supply of technologists and engineers for industry later?

Sir D. Eccles: I am doing that, and I am encouraging industry to help us by allowing highly-qualified people to divide their time between colleges and industrial employment.

School Building Programme

Sir P. Agnew: asked the Minister of Education when he will give his decision on the submission from the Worcestershire County Council for its major building programme for the two years 1963–65.

Mr. Hayman: asked the Minister of Education when he will publish details of the school building programmes for 1963–64 and 1964–65.

Mr. Hayman: asked the Minister of Education which new schools have been sanctioned for Cornwall in the building programmes for 1963–64 and 1964–65.

Sir D. Eccles: The major school building programme for 1963–64 will be announced next week. The 1964–65 programme will be settled later.

Sir P. Agnew: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is very great concern about the inadequacy of accommodation


at the Hanley Castle Grammar School? For example, whereas in 1946 there were 4 boys in the sixth form, the number has now risen to 42 and there will be 55 boys in it by September this year. The number of boys in the school, which is carrying out splendid work throughout the rural area and is serving the town of Malvern as well, will have nearly doubled by 1964 compared with the number in it just after the war, and it does not wish to have to turn away pupils.

Sir D. Eccles: I am aware of that. The next Question on the Order Paper in the name of my hon. Friend is about this school, and I will answer his points then.

Mr. Hayman: Has the Minister included any school for Falmouth in the programme which he proposes to approve, since a new primary school and a new grammar school and extensions to the technical college are all badly needed?

Sir D. Eccles: Much as I should like to give the hon. Gentleman advance information, I must ask him to wait until next week.

Mr. Willey: Will the right hon. Gentleman at least anticipate this: will we welcome the statement which he will make next week? Is he aware that there has been a considerable delay in making this statement, which we were promised in the autumn? This has caused serious inconvenience to the local education authorities.

Sir D. Eccles: The hon. Gentleman certainly ought to welcome the statement. Whether he will or not is another matter.

Sir P. Agnew: asked the Minister of Education if he will include approval of the improvements submitted by the Worcestershire County Council for Hanley Castle Grammar School in his decision on its major building programme for the years 1963–65; and if he will authorise the work at that grammar school to be carried out in the first of those years.

Sir D. Eccles: I cannot anticipate the programme announcement for 1963–64.

But if not included for that year this project will, if the authority wishes, be considered for 1964–65.

Sir P. Agnew: Will my right hon. Friend undertake to give urgent consideration to the questions which I asked him on my previous Question and consider how serious this matter will be if it goes unremedied in the very near future?

Sir D. Eccles: Yes, I will, but I must also consult the authority's list of priorities.

Superannuation (Medical Examinations)

Mr. Montgomery: asked the Minister of Education if he will accept responsibility for the payment of the fees for medical examinations of applicants for superannuation allowances on the grounds of infirmity.

Sir D. Eccles: This request has been considered before and the decision, to which I adhere, is that it is not part of the Minister's duty to pay these fees.

Mr. Montgomery: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that this is not fair to the teachers concerned? The Ministry of Education gets the best of both worlds. It does not have to pay for the medical examination, but it keeps the medical report. Is he aware that the British Medical Association disagrees with him profoundly on this subject? Would not he agree that, if these teachers have to pay for the medical examination, they should at least have the medical report or it should be sent to their general practitioner?

Sir D. Eccles: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but it is quite customary in seeking an insurance policy or something of that nature that a medical report is obtained which is then confidential to the insurance company. I am really in that position.

Dental Officers, Wales

Mr. I. Davies: asked the Minister of Education how many school dental officers are in the employ of local authorities in Welsh counties and county boroughs; and what is the total current deficiency.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Kenneth Thompson): Welsh counties and county boroughs employ the equivalent of sixty-one full-time school dental officers; the equivalent of a further eighty-seven full-time dentists would be needed for a comprehensive service.

Mr. Davies: Is the hon. Member aware of the great concern which exists, especially among parents, about the state of the school dental service? Is he further aware that in the County of Glamorgan the ratio in respect of the school dental service is one dentist per 12,000 children, as compared with one per 3,000, which is the recommended basis? In view of that state of affairs, will he give this matter his serious attention?

Mr. Thompson: I am aware of the very serious condition of the school dental service. The House is familiar with the reasons for it. I must correct the hon Member's figures with regard to the ratio of dentists to children in Glamorgan. I am advised that it is one per 5,600—which we recognise is far less than enough, but which is also a good deal better than the figure given by the hon. Member.

Dame Irene Ward: Is my hon. Friend aware that the condition of children's teeth is one of the few things that have not improved in respect of the health of children for many a decade? Does not this fact make it all the more important that we should have a sufficient number of school dentists? Would my hon. Friend like to go to the exhibition on health visitors at the London University and see the graphs concerning this matter? If he did that, he would know a little more about it.

Mr. Thompson: We cannot all be experts in every subject. I have done a good deal of research into this matter. My right hon. Friend and I share the concern which my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) has for the condition of our children's teeth. I am advised that in a good many ways the deterioration in the condition of children's teeth is to some extent an almost inevitable corollary of the improvement in other matters.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS PROCEEDINGS (TELEVISION)

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a further statement in continuation of the Answers he gave to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South on 3rd February, 1959, and on 17th December, 1959, about televising proceedings in the House, and if he will now make arrangements for Question Time to be filmed unedited so that it can be shown at the peak viewing time on television; and if he will make arrangements for televising unedited the proceedings of the House of Commons at various times so that people can see and hear their elected representatives and obtain a clearer conception of the proceedings by modern methods.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): No, Sir. This is primarily a question for the House itself and I have had no indication of any change in the general feeling of the House since the matter was discussed in 1959 and again in 1960.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Does the Prime Minister agree that there is an increasing tendency for Ministers to go on television and to make important political statements which gives no opportunity to interrogate them in accordance with the democratic standard of this country? This tends to undermine the status of Parliament. Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that that giant, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) always deprecated this kind of thing? Has not the time arrived when the Prime Minister should reconsider the matter in that light?

The Prime Minister: As I say, I think that this is a matter primarily for the House itself. I have not received any indication of a change of view from that which has been taken. As far as I am concerned, I only want to do what is the general wish of the House, and if there were any reason to suppose that there has been a change of view, of course I and the Leader of the House would consider it.

Mr. Callaghan: I agree with the Prime Minister that this is a matter for the House, but would he care to initiate some further discussions on this matter to see how far opinion has modified


since we last discussed it in view of the need that the democratic processes should be as widely understood and appreciated in this country as possible?

The Prime Minister: If the Leader of the Opposition would wish that, I should be very happy to discuss the matter with him.

Mr. Kershaw: Does not my right, hon. Friend think that, if Question Time were televised, supplementary questions would be even longer and more boring than they are at the moment?

The Prime Minister: I doubt the possibility of that.

Mr. Grimond: While appreciating the advantage of a certain amount of editing, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether I am right in thinking that he is on record as being not entirely opposed to the televising of some proceedings in Parliament? If so, will he consider whether an inquiry should be held, not only into this particular matter, but into the whole question of an edited or unedited form of televising Parliament and of the use of television in politics at all?

The Prime Minister: Frankly, I do not hold very strong views about this. Naturally, being a somewhat older man, I take very progressive and up-to-date views on these matters. I think that the Leader of the House, the Leader of the Opposition and myself would be very willing to discuss this matter with the right hon. Gentleman again, but I think that here we ought to serve the House and not impose our own views upon it.

Sir G. Nicholson: Would not a suggestion like the one which has just been made merely encourage the exhibitionism and vanity which are occupational hazards of politics?

Dame Irene Ward: For goodness sake, do not get caught up with the others.

Oral Answers to Questions — GENERAL ELECTIONS (PARTY POLITICAL BROADCASTS)

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Prime Minister if he will move to appoint a Select Committee of the House to consider and report on how to bring about more democratic proceedings on the

radio and television during the next General Election, and how to ensure in these media a fair opportunity for candidates and for free speech for the working class during a General Election.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. These matters were arranged last time after consultation between the B.B.C., I.T.A. and the Conservative, Labour and Liberal parties. So far as I remember, the broad results were satisfactory.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Does the Prime Minister remember that great conference held in Manchester which Lord Beaver-brook addressed when he returned from Russia? Does he agree that it assisted to stimulate our war effort, and is he aware that those same men are now engaged in the export trade and are feeling disfranchised because of the undermining of their democratic rights? Will the Prime Minister agree to reconsider this so that their rights can be restored?

The Prime Minister: I tried to follow the purpose of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, but I found it a little difficult to connect it with the Question about the television arrangements for General Elections. I will certainly consider most sympathetically any point that he has to make, but I think it right that these arrangements should be made in the usual way between the various parties and the television authorities.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: asked the Prime Minister what proposals he has made to President Kennedy and Chairman Khrushchev for the reporting of the proceedings of the United Nations Committee on Disarmament which is to meet in Geneva on 14th March, 1962.

The Prime Minister: I have made no proposals on this subject. It will be for the Conference itself to decide what arrangements should be made.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the Prime Minister consider that this may be a matter of great importance to the success of the new committee in Geneva, and that it ought to be considered in advance? Will he remember that the


system of the last committee, of so-called private meetings with each delegate giving his own angled version of what had happened at the end of each session, is really a very unsatisfactory way of informing the public?

The Prime Minister: Of course I will consider it, but we shall be one of eighteen members. It is not for us to dictate. It is a collective decision of the Conference when it meets, and the usual practice has been for a daily agreed communiqué to be issued by the Conference.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA CIVIL SERVICE (NON-DESIGNATED OFFICERS)

Mr. John Hall: asked the Prime Minister when he received the petition from the Civil Service Association of Kenya on behalf of non-designated overseas officers in the Kenya Civil Service; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) on Tuesday.

Mr. Hall: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Kenyan Government support the claim that non-designated officers should be treated on the same basis as designated officers? If there is any doubt in this matter, is it not right in the present circumstances that the non-designated officer should be given the benefit of that doubt?

The Prime Minister: I quite understand the problem. I am already in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies. I will continue to keep in close touch with him about these matters, but I should prefer not to go further than that today.

Dr. King: Is the Prime Minister aware that Questions in the House earlier today have revealed that on both sides of the House there is disquiet about the injustice being done to a group of men who have served Her Majesty's Government in Kenya very faithfully?

The Prime Minister: I quite understand that point, which we discussed only last Tuesday, and for that reason

I am on touch with my right hon. Friend on this matter.

Mr. G. Brown: In considering this, will the Prime Minister look up the precedents which the Labour Government established at the time of the independence of India, and the very large sum of money—about £20 million—which was then paid to maintain the morale of the civil service concerned? Will he take that into account in deciding to be as generous as he can in the case of Kenya?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, but I think that this is rather a different matter. This is a matter between officers recruited by Her Majesty's Government and officers recruited locally.

Oral Answers to Questions — BERLIN (AIR CORRIDORS)

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he will represent to Mr. Khrushchev the serious danger of air manœuvres by Soviet fighters in the air corridors to Berlin, especially in view of the opening of the Geneva Disarmament Conference on 14th March.

The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal informed the right hon. and learned Gentleman on 19th February, Her Majesty's Government have already protested to the Soviet Government about their recent activities in the Berlin air corridors, and drawn their attention to the serious dangers. I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that these activities are quite unjustifiable and are not calculated to assist the important negotiations to which he refers.

Mr. Henderson: As both the United States Government and the United Kingdom Government have recognised that nuclear testing should not be allowed to jeopardise the forthcoming Geneva Conference, would not the Prime Minister agree that the Soviet Government should equally resognise that a risk of incidents by Soviet aircraft in the Berlin air corridors should not be allowed to jeopardise the Conference?

The Prime Minister: That is why we have made this protest, which I hope will be effective.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (SPEECH)

Mr. Strachey: asked the Prime Minister whether the speech of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster at Oxford on 9th February concerning South Africa's expulsion from the Commonwealth represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made no statement of Government policy when he spoke at Oxford.

Mr. Strachey: But does the Prime Minister now endorse, or not, the statement that it was wrong and a mistake for the so-called expulsion of South Africa from the Commonwealth to take place? Or does he still stand by his own view that it was unavoidable in the circumstances?

The Prime Minister: To be quite accurate, there was no question of the expulsion of South Africa from the Commonwealth. What I thought my right hon. Friend said, in general, was based on Burke's famous phrase
I do not know the method of drawing up an indictment against an whole people ";
in other words, that it was not necessarily right to blame upon a whole people the faults of a Government. I should have thought that an Opposition that had been in opposition for ten years might have been quite sympathetic to that.

Mr. Farey-Jones: Would my right hon. Friend make quite clear to the House that the day of South Africa's return to the Commonwealth will be a day of great joy and rejoicing, not even to be compared with the relief of Mafeking? It is an objective to which all men of good will should be dedicated.

The Prime Minister: I thought that both I at the time, and my right hon. Friend in his speech, made it clear that they would be welcome under different policies.

Mr. G. Brown: Did the Prime Minister not notice that part of his right hon. Friend's speech in which he said that were moral judgment to be passed on members of the Commonwealth we would not have lasted after Suez? Does the Prime Minister endorse that?

The Prime Minister: Once again that is a misquotation. What my right hon. Friend did was to make the point that many Commonwealth countries, including ourselves, have carried out policies which they considered right, but which other members of the Commonwealth thought wrong. We had an instance of this only a few weeks ago. This is a statement of fact. What he was pleading for was some recognition that there was a unity transcending the policies of particular Governments of all the Commonwealth countries. That was the plea he was making.

Mr. Grimond: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Lord Privy Seal's view of the Suez affair?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I have great regard for the Lord Privy Seal and for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The right hon. Gentleman must get a little more up to date.

Oral Answers to Questions — MR. KHRUSHCHEV (LETTER)

Mr. Fletcher: asked the Prime Minister what reply he has received to his letter to Mr. Khrushchev of 14th February.

The Prime Minister: I have not yet received a reply from Mr. Khrushchev.

Mr. Fletcher: Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that he will communicate the contents of the reply to the House as soon as he receives it? As Mr. Khrushchev appears to be in a more forthcoming mood, will the Prime Minister give an assurance that he will not discourage any opportunity that presents itself for a meeting between Heads of State?

The Prime Minister: I think that it would be wiser to wait for the reply before commenting on it.

Mr. M. Foot: Has the Prime Minister any time left for studying Mr. Khrushchev's replies, when he has to rewrite the speeches of all the members of his Government?

The Prime Minister: Although life is short, it does not preclude one from both these interesting occupations.

RHODESIA AND NYASALAND (SECRETARY OF STATE'S VISIT)

Mr. Strachey: Mr. Strachey (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether he will make a statement on his visit to the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Duncan Sandys): Yes, Sir. I returned yesterday from Salisbury, where I had discussions with the Government of the Federation about various problems in the Federal sphere.
In accordance with established practice, I also consulted the Federal Government about the proposals of Her Majesty's Government for the amendment of the Constitution of Northern Rhodesia. In this connection, the Governor of Northern Rhodesia came to see me in Salisbury, as also did Sir John Moffat.
During my stay in the Federation, I paid a short visit to Nyasaland, where I had talks with the Governor, Dr. Banda, and other Ministers.
While in Salisbury, I also had meetings with the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia.
The House will not expect me to say anything at this stage about the conclusions to be drawn from my talks. There will be no avoidable delay in announcing any decisions which may be reached.

Mr. Strachey: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is extremely urgent that the Government should announce decisions on the inter-related problems in this whole area, and especially on the Constitution for Northern Rhodesia? Is he aware that reports show that the situation is becoming more and more disturbing and that, in the words of The Times today,
Every day's delay now darkens the prospect"?

Mr. Sandys: Everyone quotes The Times when it suits him. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that, as I said in my reply, there will be no delay which can be avoided in the announcing of any decisions which may be made.

Mr. Wall: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he has been able to make a new approach to these very difficult

problems, which have now been under discussion for well over a year?

Mr. Sandys: There is little new about this problem.

Mr. Thorpe: Can the right hon. Gentleman help us a little more in regard to Northern Rhodesia? He will be aware that it is over a year since the last Constitution was first published, and then varied. Can he tell us when the people of Northern Rhodesia will know their fate? How many weeks will it be before an announcement is made?

Mr. Sandys: It will be made as soon as possible.

Mr. Strachey: There is one thing upon which the Secretary of State can assure the House today, and that is that if the House wishes to change or dissolve the Central African Federation it is in the power of this House, and of no other House, to do so.

Mr. Sandys: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, Parliament does not possess the power to deprive itself of the right to legislate for any British territory which is not fully independent. On the other hand, there are other established conventions for legislating for self-governing dependencies.

Mr. Stonehouse: Does the Secretary of State agree with the conclusion in The Times today that a bitter pill has to be swallowed, that it is in Westminster that the decision about the future of the Federation will have to be taken, and that this responsibility cannot be delegated to Salisbury? Will he agree with that?

Mr. Sandys: The responsibility for deciding what shall be the Constitution of Northern Rhodesia rests here, in London. On the other hand, as the hon. Member knows, we have a well-established obligation to consult the Federal Government about this, and that is what we have done.

Mr. Callaghan: Are the Government now in a position where, having consulted the Federal Government and other responsible authorities, they are ready to reach their own conclusion and publish it to the House and Northern Rhodesia?

Mr. Sandys: That is what we are in process of doing.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. G. Brown: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 26TH FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the South Africa Bill, and Committee stage of the Money Resolution.
TUESDAY, 27TH FEBRUARY—Commonwealth Immigrants Bill.
Completion of the remaining stages.
WEDNESDAY, 28TH FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Road Traffic Bill [Lords], and Committee stage of the Money Resolution.
Second Reading of the Acts of Parliament (Numbering and Citation) Bill [Lords].
Consideration of the Motion to approve the Import Duties (General) (No. 3) Order.
THURSDAY, 1ST MARCH—Second Reading of the Commonwealth Settlement Bill, and Committee stage of the Money Resolution.
Education Bill.
Completion of the remaining stages. FRIDAY, 2ND MARCH—Consideration of private Members' Motions.
MONDAY, 5TH MARCH, and TUESDAY, 6TH MARCH—The proposed business will be a debate on Defence, on a Government Motion inviting the House to approve the White Paper (Command No. 1639).

Mr. Smithers: Has my right hon. Friend noticed the Motion standing in my name and the names of a number of other hon. Members concerning the underground storage of gas which is provided for in a Bill at present before the House?

[That this House, in view of the considerations involved, legal, constitutional, economic, technical and strategic, and of considerations of public safety and amenities, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to set up an independent

inquiry into the desirability, practicability and implications of the underground storage of gas in Great Britain; and is of opinion that pending the report of such an inquiry the Gas (Underground Storage) (Chilcomb) Bill, 1961, should be withdrawn.]

Can my right hon. Friend say whether there is any possibility of a debate on the matter, or tell us what the procedural position is?

Mr. Macleod: I have, of course, noted this Motion, and I am also aware of the strong feelings which this matter arouses. The situation is that the Bill, having been opposed for a formal Second Reading, has not yet been put down for discussion. Perhaps we had better wait to see what happens.

Mr. Steele: Is the Leader of the House aware that Standing Committee E is at present dealing with the Transport Bill and that, to help the Government with their business, it is sitting not only next Tuesday morning, but in the afternoon and perhaps also in the evening? In view of the fact that the subject of Wednesday's business in the House is the Road Traffic Bill, and that hon. Members on Standing Committee E are particularly interested in this Measure—and also that the Minister of Transport and the Parliamentary Secretary, who are also on Standing Committee E, will obviously be interested in it—will it be possible for that business to be transferred to Thursday, or can the Minister give us an assurance that we will not sit too late in Committee on Tuesday evening?

Mr. Macleod: I am glad to know that hon. Members opposite are so anxious to help with the progress of the Transport Bill. That was not my impression from reading reports of the proceedings in Committee. The Road Traffic Bill is of great importance to all hon. Members. Whatever their various views may be, to the extent that it affects road safety it must command a good deal of support. Therefore, I thought that we should take the Second Reading. It is true that this creates a complication in relation to the other Bill which is being considered upstairs, and I will take into account the point which the hon. Member has raised.

Mr. Shinwell: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen a Motion on the Order


Paper today entitled Prerogative or Mercy", which is signed by very large numbers of hon. Members on this side of the House? In view of the feeling among those hon. Members and, presumably, among hon. Members opposite, and the public disquiet about the matter, would the right hon. Gentleman afford facilities to enable us to debate it?

[That this House calls upon the Secretary of State for the Home Department, within the powers vested in him, to advise the exercise of the prerogative of mercy in respect of those persons associated with the Nuclear Disarmament Campaign who were sentenced to terms of imprisonment at the Old Bailey.]

Mr. Macleod: I understand, although I do not share, the anxiety expressed in that Motion, and which was also expressed in the House yesterday. But my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made the position quite clear. It is open to those concerned to apply to the Court of Criminal Appeal for leave to appeal. I should make it quite clear that there can be no question of Government time being provided to discuss that matter.

Mr. Nabarro: May I press my right hon. Friend on the question asked of him by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Smithers) about the Motion which has been signed by hon. Members on both sides of the House? Would not my right hon. Friend concur at once that it would be extremely unsatisfactory procedurally to try to compress discussion on an important matter of this kind—which has national implications—for all the reasons given in the Motion, into a very short discussion on a Private Bill? Will not my right hon. Friend consult the Minister of Power on the question of an allocation of Government time, so that this and similar projects in the future may properly be opposed by hon. Members on both sides of the House?

Mr. Macleod: I have consulted my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power and, indeed, other of my right hon. Friends, because there is more than one Ministry concerned in this proposal. It has some novel aspects. I can only suggest to my hon. Friend that he takes note of what I said earlier, that we should wait to see how this develops and not make too many assumptions.

Mr. Wade: Can the Leader of the House say when a debate will take place on the subject of House of Lords reform about which there is a Motion on the Order Paper in his name? When a debate takes place, will it be of such a wide nature as to allow those who consider a much more radical reform necessary to express their views?

Mr. Macleod: I hope that it will be possible to have a debate within the next few weeks at least. The subject is not included in the business which I have announced for next week. So far as concerns the scope of the matter, presumably the original Question to be put to the House would be the Motion standing on the Order Paper in my name. It is for the Chair and not for me to decide how much wider the debate should range in the light of Amendments or of anything else.

Sir G. Nicholson: In view of the principles involved in the Gas (Underground Storage) (Chilcomb) Bill, and the implications, and the enormous multiplicity of points of view, would not it be much more appropriate if there were immediate acceptance of the need for an inquiry and that for the time being the Bill was withdrawn, rather than allow matters of great moment to hinge on a debate of two or three hours in this House on a specific Measure?

Dame Irene Ward: Why not mention Ullswater?

Mr. Macleod: I have not said that this would happen. This is a Private Bill. I do not know when it may be put down for "opposed discussion", if that be the right way to put it. I think that I have made quite clear to my hon. Friends that I entirely understand their anxieties. I have referred to the novel aspects of the Bill and the discussions which I have had about it with a number of my right hon. Friends. Beyond that not only cannot I go, but I think that it would be improper for me to go, in view of the state of the Bill before the House.

Mr. Shinwell: May I revert to the matter to which I have already directed the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, the Motion standing in my name? Would not he agree that although primarily this is a matter for the jurisdiction of the courts and that it has


various legal aspects, nevertheless there are definite political implications; for example, the right of citizens to engage in public demonstrations? In view of these political implications, will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision and find time to have just a short debate on the matter?

Mr. Macleod: No, Sir. I must be made quite clear that I agree entirely with the point of view put by the Home Secretary to the House yesterday. In view of that, I cannot undertake to find Government time.

Dame Irene Ward: Following his discussion with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the "Mrs. Mops", may I ask my right hon. Friend whether we are to have a chance next week to talk about something which is very dear to the hearts of all hon. Members before final action is taken? Did my right hon. Friend have a satisfactory and sympathetic talk with the Chancellor, or did the Chancellor overrule his sympathy?

Mr. Macleod: I had an entirely sympathetic talk with the Chancellor—as I always do, and as was shown by the fact that a question on this was answered specially on Tuesday—and I think that the House will regard it as in a sense unusual—at the end of Questions, in reply to the appeals made to me on Thursday of last week.

Mr. J. Robertson: In view of the closure of pits and of railway lines in Scotland, and the further increase in unemployment and short-time working in the steel industry in Scotland, will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his answer to a question which I asked him last week concerning the distribution of industry? Would not he agree that there can be no subject of greater importance to the House than the well-being of Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and the Northern Counties of England? Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government have a responsibility in this matter? Will not he arrange for an early debate on the question?

Mr. Macleod: No one can quarrel with the hon. Member's generalisaition. Frankly, this is the most difficult time of the whole year for Government time; we are moving into the spring period of

Supply. During this period the number of days available for general debate is negligible. In view of that, I cannot be more forthcoming than I was last week.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Would my right hon. Friend address himself to a Motion which at one time had about 330 names attached to it, and called for an independent inquiry into the remuneration of members of the Fire Service; and also the Motion which, I think, has 162 names attached to it, calling for a review of the remuneration of members of professions supplementary to medicine, as the people engaged in those services are endeavouring to render a service to the community rather than to break its laws?

[That this House is concerned at the grave shortage of qualified audiological technicians, dieticians, occupational therapists, orthoptists, physiotherapists, and remedial gymnasts in the National Health Service and its effects on the national economy; and calls upon the Minister of Health to appoint an independent committee to review and report upon the present arrangements for recruitment, retention, grading and remuneration of members of these professions in the National Health Service, and to make any recommendations considered necessary.]

Mr. Macleod: Questions relating to the professions supplementary to medicine are largely for the ordinary negotiating machinery. In a number of the professions which are included under the umbrella of that Motion the negotiating machinery is being used. I believe that that is a more satisfactory approach than having an inquiry or, for that matter, a debate.

Mr. S. Silverman: May I revert to the subject of the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), who urged the Leader of the House to reconsider that matter? Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that prosecutions under this Section of the Official Secrets Act cannot be instituted without the leave of the Attorney-General and that in the exercise of that authority—as was shown many years ago by the Campbell case—it would be quite wrong for him to be influenced by political considerations? Is not he aware that in the


opinion of many hon. Members this was an abuse of that procedure, and that these people should not be kept in gaol one day more? Will he give the House of Commons an opportunity to debate and decide that question?

Mr. Macleod: Nobody who has been, as I have been for almost ten years now, a Minister of Cabinet rank or a member of the Cabinet, could think for a moment that in any decision—whatever may have happened in an isolated instance a generation or more ago—in any case at all a Law Officer of the Crown is deflected by political considerations from doing his duty.

Mr. Willis: Will the right hon. Gentleman apply his mind to the problem arising as a result of the increasing number of Standing Committees which are being compelled to sit on Tuesday afternoons? The House is being denuded of almost 200 hon. Members as from next week, and there will be no Scottish Member, as from next week, who will be able to attend business in the House on Tuesdays. Will the right hon. Gentleman do something about that?

Mr. Macleod: I am sure that the hon. Member will join with me in an earnest appeal to Scottish hon. Members to expedite the business in Standing Committees.

Mr. Peyton: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that considerable expedition of the business of the House could be achieved if a new organisation were set up to arrange for some Scottish business to be discussed north of the Tweed?

Mr. Fletcher: Whatever the Leader of the House may think of the attitude of Law Officers of the Crown during the last ten years, surely he does not dispute the right of this House, if it wants to do so, to criticise the action of the Attorney-General in any specific case in issuing his fiat for a presecution?

Mr. Macleod: I did not say that. There may well be ways in which it is appropriate to put down such a Motion. What I was dealing with was the question of Government time and the suggestion which was made, which I say from my experience I know to be untrue, that Law

Officers are influenced in these matters by political considerations. They are not.

Mr. Ross: Bearing in mind that the business for next Tuesday was considered so important that the Government changed their mind and insisted that it should be debated on the Floor of the House in Committee and that on Tuesday next no fewer than three Committees—the Sea Fish Industry Bill Committee, the Transport Bill Committee and the Scottish Committee—will be meeting upstairs, thereby depriving 100 to 140 hon. Members of the oportunity of being in this House to discuss that important matter, will the Leader of the House reconsider next Tuesday's business? If he cannot find any other way, will he adjourn the House next Tuesday after Questions in order to allow us to concentrate on these important matters?

Mr. Macleod: No. Sir.

Dr. King: Is the Leader of the House aware that the anxieties which several of his hon. Friends have expressed this afternoon about the Gas (Underground Storage) (Chilcomb) Bill are shared by hon. Members on this side of the House? Will he give serious consideration to whether a Bill of this magnitude, raising such new and tremendous issues, ought to be taken by Private Bill procedure at all?

Mr. Macleod: Yes, Sir, of course I will. Indeed, I had meant my previous answer to indicate that that was one of the sort of matters I am considering.

Mr. Hale: Will the right hon. Gentleman stop talking about "Government time" and realise that the time is the time of the House allocated by vote, which can be countermanded? If there is a really important moral issue raised by this use of a procedure which the House passed to deal with espionage and which is being applied with what appears to us singular brutality against men of conscience—however misguided or otherwise their views may be—if there is a real demand for a debate, will the right hon. Gentleman remember that if that demand is refused we may be compelled to take a course which would make a debate imperative? We would be compelled to take time for a course


which otherwise would be distasteful to us. It is the job of the Leader of the House to try to meet a largely expressed desire of this kind.

Mr. Macleod: On the question of terminology, of course all time is the time of the House, but the hon. Member, who is a very experienced Parliamentarian, knows perfectly well that there are many occasions on which the Government—if I may put it this way—have the initiative and on which, by convention, the Opposition have the initiative. We all understand this and understand what those occasions are.
On this occasion, I am being asked to provide a day from what I call Government time—although I agree that it is the time of the House of Commons—to debate a matter on which the Home Secretary made a quite clear statement yesterday, that is to say, that those concerned can apply to the Court of Criminal Appeal for leave to appeal. It would be wholly wrong of me to try to embroider on that.

Mr. Frank Allaun: The Leader of the House has just said that the debate is not permissible within the fourteen days in which an appeal might be made. Will he give an undertaking that time will be provided for such a debate if, within the remaining thirteen days, this right of appeal is not exercised?

Mr. Macleod: No, Sir. I did not say that it was not permissible within the days concerned. I was dealing with the question whether it would or would not be right for me to offer Government time for this matter. "Government time" is a convenient term Which we all understand. I must stick to the point I made. I understand, although as I have said I do not share, (the views which have been expressed about this matter. I am certain that what was said by the Home Secretary yesterday was right.

Mr. G. Brown: I am not sure that I followed that last statement.

Mr. Frank Allaun: On a point of order. The Leader of the House told us only a few moments ago that the ground was the inadvisability of a debate within the fourteen days. Now he has told us that that is not the ground. Where do we stand in the matter?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. G. Brown: I gather that the Minister said that he thought it would be wrong for him to embroider—I think that that was the word he used—on what the Home Secretary said yesterday. It was that these people have a period in which to apply for leave to appeal. Is a fair deduction for my hon. Friends to draw from that that when the period is up there will be a different situation which will not be covered by the Home Secretary's statement yesterday? They are asking the Leader of the House whether he will tell us what he would be willing to do after that.

Mr. Macleod: I think that part of what the right hon. Member has said is perfectly fair. After this period has run out, whether there be an appeal or not, to that extent, of course, a new situation will arise. The point is that then it would be appropriate, I imagine, for the Home Secretary to consider representations on their behalf. That is the point my right hon. Friend was making yesterday and which I make now.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I am a little concerned about the interests of the House in general on this matter. Of course, it is out of order to ask of a Minister a question which is already answered, although in a negative way. I must indicate that I think it is reaching a point where to go on asking the same question which has been answered in a negative way is not in order. I would, of course, hear any new business questions arising.

Mrs. Hart: I wish to seek your guidance again, Mr. Speaker, as I did yesterday. There is a difficulty here, because clarification is needed on the questions which have been asked. Would I be permitted to seek that?

Mr. Speaker: I do not understand what this is about. The Minister is being asked to give time—if I use the term "Government time" it is only in the sense in which the Leader of the House used it—and he said that he


would not give it now or hereafter. What clarification arises out of that?

Mrs. Hart: With due respect, Mr. Speaker, I think that there is one point which needs some clarification. There seems to be a little confusion on whether we are talking entirely and exclusively about giving time for a debate on a Motion which appeared on the Order Paper concerning people in prison, or if we may also deal with a question of providing time to debate whether or not it was right that the Official Secrets Act should have been invoked. I completely understand the Leader of the House saying that he does not think that it would be possible to find time for the former, whether the situation may or may not change during fourteen days. He has not made clear, however, whether he also takes that view on the latter point.

Mr. Speaker: No doubt we could discuss some question of a Motion on the Order Paper relating—I do not know how to put it in a negative way—to the use of this Statute for this wrong purpose, but at the moment the problem relates to the opportunity for a discussion of the Motion on the Order Paper, in names beginning, I think, with the name of the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell).

Mr. Parkin: Further to that point of order. Would it not save the time of the House if the Leader of the House were to recognise that the Motion on the Order Paper is not concerned with any steps it may be possible to take later to discuss the issue of the fiat? It is a recommendation that at the earliest opportunity, a political trial against a particular method having taken place, it should be followed by a political gesture in recommending clemency.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot see any point of order in that.

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the refusal of the Home Secretary to advise Her Majesty the Queen to exercise the Royal pre

rogative of mercy in the case of those recently convicted and sentenced under the Official Secrets Act, Section 1.
Before asking you to consider whether this is a case within the Standing Order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to advance three very short considerations. The first is that the question which the House would like to discuss is not the same question as might, if notice were given, be dealt with by the Court of Criminal Appeal. The judges in the Court of Criminal Appeal would be considering questions within their competence under the Act and arising out of the trial. The House wishes to consider whether the Royal prerogative of mercy, which is quite a different thing, should be exercised and, indeed, the circumstances in which this prosecution was ever started.
The second consideration I respectfully draw to your attention is that, even if notice of appeal were given, it must inevitably happen that many weeks would elapse before it could be dealt with.
The third consideration is the intimation by the Leader of the House, frequently repeated during the course of the last ten minutes, that there will be no convenient opportunity otherwise for considering this question, unless this Motion is accepted. This is not a case in which it can be said that there is another and an early opportunity, because this is exactly what the Leader of the House has said will not happen. In these circumstances, I submit, with all respect, that there could be no clearer case of an application of this kind being made under the Standing Order, and I respectfully ask for leave.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the refusal of the Home Secretary to advise Her Majesty the Queen to exercise the Royal prerogative of mercy in the case of those recently convicted and sentenced under the Official Secrets Act, Section 1.
In my view, this cannot be within the Standing Order, and I cannot leave it to the House.

COMMONWEALTH IMMIGRANTS BILL (BUSINESS COMMITTEE)

Motion made, and Question put,

That the Report [20th February] of the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. Iain Macleod.]

The House divided: Ayes 244, Noes 170.

Division No. 98.]
AYES
[4.5 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Glover, Sir Douglas
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Aitken, W. T.
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Maddan, Martin


Allason, James
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Maitland, Sir John


Arbuthnot, John
Goodhart, Philip
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Atkins, Humphrey
Goodhew, Victor
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Barlow, Sir John
Gower, Raymond
Marshall, Douglas


Batsford, Brian
Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Marten, Neil


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Green, Alan
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Bell, Ronald
Gresham Cooke, R.
Mawby, Ray


Biffen, John
Gurden, Harold
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Biggs-Davidson, John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. s. L. C.


Birch, Ht. Hon Nigel
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Mills, Stratton


Bishop, F. P.
Hare, Rt. Hon. John
Montgomery, Fergus


Black, Sir Cyril
Harris, Reader (Heston)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Bossom, Clive
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Morgan, William


Bourne-Arton, A.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morrison, John


Box, Donald
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Nabarro, Gerald


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hastings, Stephen
Neave, Airey


Braine, Bernard
Hay, John
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hendry, Forbes
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Brooman-White, R.
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hiley, Joseph
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Bryan, Paul
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Bullard, Denys
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Hobson, Sir John
Partridge, E.


Burden, F. A.
Hocking, Philip N.
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Holland, Philip
Peel, John


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden)
Hollingworth, John
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hopkins, Alan
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hornby, R. P.
Pitt, Miss Edith


Channon, H. P. G.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Pott, Percivall


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
Hughes-Young, Michael
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Prior, J. M. L.


Cleaver, Leonard
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Cole, Norman
Jackson, John
Pym, Francis


Collard, Richard
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Cooke, Robert
Jennings, J. C.
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Cooper, A. E.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Renton, David


Cordle, John
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Costain, A. P.
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Ridsdale, Julian


Coulson, Michael
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Rippon, Geoffrey


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Robson Brown, Sir William


Critchley, Jullan
Kershaw, Anthony
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Kimball, Marcus
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Cunningham, Knox
Kirk, Peter
Russell, Ronald


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kitson, Timothy
Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan


Dance, James
Lagden, Godfrey
Scott-Hopkins, James


Deedes, W. F.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Shaw, M.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Leather, E. H. C.
Skeet, T. H. H.


Doughty, Charles
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Drayson, G. B.
Lindsay, Sir Martin
Smithers, Peter


Duncan, Sir James
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Eden, John
Litchfield, Capt. John
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Speir, Rupert


Elliott, R. W. (Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Longbottom, Charles
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Longden, Gilbert
Stevens, Geoffrey


Farr, John
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Studholme, Sir Henry


Fell, Anthony
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Finlay, Graeme
McAdden, Stephen
Talbot, John E.


Fisher, Nigel
MacArthur, Ian
Tapsell, Peter


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McLaren, Martin
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Gammans, Lady
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute&amp;N. Ayrs.)
Temple, John M.


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Gibson-Watt, David
McMaster, Stanley R.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Gilmour, Sir John
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)







Thornton- Kemsley, Sir Colin
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Walder, David
Wise, A. R.


Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Walker, Peter
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Wall, Patrick
Woodhouse, C. M.


Turner, Colin
Ward, Dame Irene
Woollam, John


Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold
Worsley, Marcus


Tweedsmuir, Lady
Webster, David
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


van Straubenzee, W. R.
Wells, John (Maidstone)



Vickers, Miss Joan
Whitelaw, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Mr. Edward Wakefield and




Mr. J. E. B. Hill.




NOES


Ainsley, William
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Peart, Frederick


Albu, Austen
Hannan, William
Prentice, R. E.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Probert, Arthur


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hayman, F. H.
Randall, Harry


Awbery, Stan
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Reynolds, G. W.


Beaney, Alan
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Bence, Cyril
Holman, Percy
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Benson, Sir George
Houghton, Douglas
Ross, William


Blackburn, F.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)


Blyton, William
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Boardman, H.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Short, Edward


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Hunter, A. E.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Bowles, Frank
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Boyden, James
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Skeffington, Arthur


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Janner, Sir Barnett
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Jeger, George
Small, William


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Snow, Julian


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Sorensen, R. W.


Callaghan, James
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Spriggs, Leslie


Chapman, Donald
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Steele, Thomas


Cliffe, Michael
Kelley, Richard
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Kenyon, Clifford
Stonehouse, John


Cronin, John
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Stones, William


Crosland, Anthony
King, Dr. Horace
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Darling, George
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Swain, Thomas


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Lipton, Marcus
Swingler, Stephen


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Loughlin, Charles
Symonds, J. B.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Davies, Ifor (Cower)
McInnes, James
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Deer, George
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Thomson, C. M. (Dundee, E.)


Dempsey, James
McLeavy, Frank
Thornton, Ernest


Diamond, John
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thorpe, Jeremy


Dodds, Norman
Manuel, A. C.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Mapp, Charles
Wade, Donald


Edelman, Maurice
Marsh, Richard
Wainwright, Edwin


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mason, Roy
Warbey, William


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Mayhew, Christopher
Weitzman, David


Evans, Albert
Mendelson, J. J.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Fernyhough, E.
Millan, Bruce
White, Mrs. Eirene


Fletcher, Eric
Milne, Edward
Whitlock, William


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Mitchison, G. R.
Wilkins, W. A.


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Monslow, Walter
Willey, Frederick


Forman, J. C.
Moody, A. S.
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Morris, John
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Moyle, Arthur
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
Mulley, Frederick
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Ginsburg, David
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Oliver, G. H.
Woof, Robert


Gourlay, Harry
Oram, A. E.
Wyatt, Woodrow


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Owen, Will
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)



Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Parkin, B. T.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Paton, John
Mr. G. H. R. Rogers and


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Pavitt, Laurence
Mr. Lawson.

Report considered accordingly.

Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Report,

put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 41 (Business Committee):—

The House divided: Ayes 242, Noes 173.

Division No. 99.]
AYES
[4.14 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Arbuthnot, John
Batsford, Brian


Aitken, W. T.
Atkins, Humphrey
Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)


Allason, James
Barlow, Sir John
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton




Bell, Ronald
Harrison, Col, Sir Harwood (Eye)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Biffen, John
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Biggs-Davison, John
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Hastings, Stephen
Partridge, E.


Bishop, F. P.
Hay, John
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Black, Sir Cyril
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Peel, John


Bossom, Clive
Hendry, Forbes
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Brume-Arton, A.
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Box, Donald
Hiley, Joseph
Pitt, Miss Edith


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon Charles (Luton)
Pott, Percivall


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Braine, Bernard
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bromley -Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter
Hirst, Geoffrey
Prior, J. M. L.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hobson, Sir John
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Brooman-White, R.
Holland, Philip
Pym, Francis


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hollingworth, John
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Hopkins, Alan
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Bryan, Paul
Hornby, R. P.
Renton, David


Bullard, Denys
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Hughes-Young, Michael
Ridsdale, Julian


Burden, F. A.
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Rippon, Geoffrey


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Robson Brown, Sir William


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Jackson, John
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Channon, H. P. G.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
Jennings, J. C.
Russell, Ronald


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Cleaver, Leonard
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Sharples, Richard


Cole, Norman
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Shaw, M.


Collard, Richard
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Skeet, T. H. H.


Cooke, Robert
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Cooper, A. E.
Kershaw, Anthony
Smithers, Peter


Cordle, John
Kimball, Marcus
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Costain, A. P.
Kirk, Peter
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Coulson, Michael
Kitson, Timothy
Speir, Rupert


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Lagden, Godfrey
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Critchley, Julian
Leather, E. H. C.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Cunningham, Knox
Lindsay, Sir Martin
Talbot, John E.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Tapsell, Peter


Dance, James
Litchfield, Capt. John
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Deedes, W. F.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


de Ferranti, Basil
Longbottom, Charles
Temple, John M.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Longden, Gilbert
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Doughty, Charles
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Drayson, G. B.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Duncan, Sir James
McAdden, Stephen
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Eden, John
MacArthur, Ian
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McLaren, Martin
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Elliott, R. w. (Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.)
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Maclean, Sir Fitroy (Bute&amp;N. Ayrs.)
Turner, Colin


Farr, John
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Fell, Anthony
McMaster, Stanley R.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Finlay, Graeme
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Fisher, Nigel
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Vane, W. M. F.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maddan, Martin
Vickers, Miss Joan


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Gammans, Lady
Markharp, Major Sir Frank
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Marshall, Douglas
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Gibson-Watt, David
Marten, Neil
Walder, David


Gilmour, Sir John
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Walker, Peter


Glover, Sir Douglas
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Wall, Patrick


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Mawby, Ray
Ward, Dame Irene


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Goodhart, Philip
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Webster, David


Goodhew, Victor
Mills, Stratum
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Gower, Raymond
Montgomery, Fergus
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Grant, Rt. Hon. William
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.
Morgan, William
Wise, A. R.


Green, Alan
Morrison, John
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Gresham Cooke, R.
Nabarro, Gerald
Woodhouse, C. M.


Gurden, Harold
Neave, Airey
Woollam, John


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Worsley, Marcus


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie



Hare, Rt. Hon. John
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Mr. Whitelaw and


Harrison, Brian (Maidon)
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Mr. Gordon Campbell.




NOES


Ainsley, William
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.


Albu, Austen
Awbery, Stan
Bence, Cyril


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Beaney, Alan
Benson, Sir George







Blackburn, F.
Holman, Percy
Randall, Harry


Blyton, William
Houghton, Douglas
Reynolds, G. W.


Boardman, H.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Bowen, Orderly (Cardigan)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Bowles, Frank
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Boyden, James
Hunter, A. E.
Ross, William


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Short, Edward


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jeger, George
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Skeffington, Arthur


Callaghan, James
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Chapman, Ronald
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Cliffe, Michael
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Small, William


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Cronin, John
Kelley, Richard
Snow, Julian


Crosland, Anthony
Kenyon, Clifford
Sorensen, R. W.


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Spriggs, Leslie


Darling, George
King, Dr. Horace
Steele, Thomas


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Stonehouse, John


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lipton, Marcus
Stones, William


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Deer, George
MacColl, James
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Dempsey, James
McInnes, James
Swain, Thomas


Diamond, John
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Swingler, Stephen


Dodds, Norman
McLeavy, Frank
Symonds, J. B.


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Macpherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Edelman, Maurice
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Manuel, A. C.
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Mapp, Charles
Thornton, Ernest


Evans, Albert
Marsh, Richard
Thorpe, Jeremy


Fernyhough, E.
Mason, Roy
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Fletcher, Eric
Mayhew, Christopher
Wade, Donald


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Mendelson, J. J.
Wainwright, Edwin


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Millan, Bruce
Warbey, William


Forman, J. C.
Milne, Edward
Weitzman, David


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mitchison, G. R.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Monslow, Walter
White, Mrs. Eirene


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
Moody, A. S.
Whitlock, William


Ginsburg, David
Morris, John
Wilkins, W. A.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Moyle, Arthur
Willey, Frederick


Gourlay, Harry
Mulley, Frederick
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Griffiths, David (Rother valley)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Oliver, G. H.
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Oram, A. E.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Owen, Will
Winterbottom, R. E.


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Woof, Robert


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Parkin, B. T.
Wyatt, Woodrow


Hannan, William
Paton, John
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Pavitt, Laurence
Zilliacus, K.


Hayman, F. H.
Peart, Frederick



Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Prentice, R. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Probert, Arthur
Mr. G. H. R. Rogers and


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Mr. Lawson.

The following is the Report of the Business Committee:

That—

(a) the Proceedings on Consideration of the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill shall be divided into the parts specified in the second column of the Table set out below;
(b) the two days which under the Order [25th January] are given to the Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading, and portions of those days, shall be allotted in the manner shown in that Table; and
(c) subject to the provisions of the Order [25th January], each part of the Proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column of that Table.

TABLE


Allotted day
Proceedings
Time for conclusion of proceedings




p.m.


First day
New Clauses and Clause 1
6.00



Clauses 2 to 15
10.30


Second day
Clauses 16 to 21, new Schedules, Schedules and any proceedings necessary to bring the Proceedings on Consideration to a conclusion
6.00



Third Reading
10.30

Orders of the Day — COMMONWEALTH IMMIGRANTS BILL

[1ST ALLOTTED DAY]

As amended, considered.

4.25 p.m

Mr. Speaker: The new Clause entitled "United Kingdom residence permits" is not selected but, subject to considerations of time, I will call the Amendment in page 3, line 8 to insert subsection (4) and will allow the new Clause to be discussed with that.

New Clause.—(RECIPROCAL ADMISSION WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS OR CONDITIONS.)

If at any time the Secretary of State is satisfied that a Commonwealth country admits citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies without restrictions or conditions he shall make an order providing that the citizens of that country may enter and reside in the United Kingdom without restriction or condition and thereafter this Act shall not apply to the citizens of that country.—[Lady Megan Lloyd George.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

The Clause should be taken with the Amendment in page 3, line 34, at the end to insert:
Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any country within the Commonwealth which admits without limitation the free entry of citizens of the United Kingdom subject only to reasonable restrictions for medical reasons or on grounds of a criminal record.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am a little confused by what the hon. Lady said. It is true that I would allow that Amendment to be discussed with this new Clause, but her new Clause alone is the subject matter which has been selected.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: The purpose of the new Clause is plain. It is that where any country of the Commonwealth admits immigrants from this country without restriction we should accord the same rights of free entry to citizens of that country into the United Kingdom. It is an attempt to establish reciprocity and to establish a two-way traffic between any country of the Commonwealth

which allows free entry and the United Kingdom. As I understand, at the moment India allows virtually free entry of immigrants from this country. I think that only missionaries are debarred. Jamaica, too, virtually waives all restrictions on the entry of British subjects into that country.
We have heard a great deal during the debates of the advantages which accrue to Commonwealth citizens coming to this country in opportunity for work, study and further education, but, as far as I know, in the course of the debates we have heard very little about the attractions which there may be for British citizens going to some other Commonwealth countries. I have mentioned Jamaica in particular because Jamaica already accords free entry, and it certainly has a great many attractions for a certain class of British immigrant.
It is not only the sun which attracts them there; it is also the lower rates of Income Tax and the fact that if they establish themselves, as they have established themselves in considerable numbers in Jamaica, they escape from heavy Income Tax, Surtax and Estate Duty. For these reasons there has been a considerable exodus to Jamaica.
Secondly, the Commonwealth is expanding and new countries are joining, and I very much hope that if the new Clause is accepted by the Government—I live in hopes, as I always do, that they will accept a few new Clauses or Amendments before the end of Report—this reciprocity will be extended to new countries entering the Commonwealth.
One argument which has been constantly used by hon. Members opposite in favour of the Bill is that the present arrangements are very one-sided and that they operate against British subjects wishing to emigrate to Commonwealth countries. This is an opportunity to redress the balance, and I hope very much that the Government will accept the new Clause, which is eminently reasonable and which will give reciprocity between other countries of the Commonwealth and this country. I therefore commend it to the House.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Gower: The hon. Lady the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George) introduced


her proposed Clause in her usual moderate and persuasive way. She said that it would appear to be consistent with the views that have been expressed by some of my hon. Friends, who have suggested that the Bill has a justification because other Commonwealth countries have restrictions of their own.
But surely the Bill was not introduced as a sort of tit for tat—that because other countries of the Commonwealth have certain restrictions we must have some. It was designed to meet a particular problem in the United Kingdom. I would have thought that the proposed new Clause would be wholly incompatible with the objects of the Bill and with the general principle of the Measure as approved on Second Reading. That object is not to prevent people from coming here, but merely to delay the date of arrival, if necessary.
If a provision such as that now proposed were incorporated in the Bill it might mean that a number of territories to which British people seldom go, but from which large numbers might desire to come here, would be removed from the control of this country by reciprocal arrangements such as this. For these reasons, I would have thought that the Clause, if approved, would make nonsense of the Bill.

Mr. Dingle Foot: In our discussions we have to distinguish between the reasons for introducing the Bill and the excuses which have been advanced for it. The proposed new Clause is not an academic one, or a wrecking proposal. It raises a very real issue which may be of considerable importance to the future of the Commonwealth.
I had a rather unusual experience last year, for I happened to be in New Delhi at the time when the Bill was introduced. I had the opportunity of discussing the Measure with Indian political leaders and also with representatives of the Indian Ministry of External Affairs. They expressed some strong feelings and many of them considered it to be an extremely retrograde Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George) pointed out, since gaining her independence India has followed a liberal immigration policy except, as my hon. Friend

said, for missionaries, who are a special class to themselves. There is, in effect, completely free entry for citizens of this country and that has been the case since 1947.
If one visits Delhi or other Indian centres one finds British citizens occupying responsible positions, often competing with the Indians themselves. To some extent they create a considerable exchange problem for India, for many of them are remitting funds to Britain at a time when India has exchange difficulties. Despite this, no obstacles are placed in the way of British nationals who wish to make their homes, albeit for the time being, and earn their living in India.
One of the dangers of the Bill is that it may create in India and other parts of the Commonwealth a demand for similar legislation. I do not say that it will—just that it may happen. If it happens in India and that country abandons what, in practice, if not in theory, has been its present policy up to now and India starts putting restrictions on British nationals who wish to go there, what will be the result? It will mean that we shall have created in the Commonwealth two sets of restrictions where no restrictions existed before. We will have done this at a time when we should have been pulling barriers down and not building them up.
It has previously been pointed out that the British Government are now negotiating our entry into the Common Market and I am one of those who hope that those negotiations will succeed and that we shall accede to the Treaty of Rome. But it will be a most ironical development if, at the moment when we are joining the Common Market and providing for increased freedom of movement between European countries, we should pass a Measure which will result in increasing restrictions and barriers being placed on Commonwealth countries.
I hope, therefore, that the Government will seriously consider the proposed new Clause. While they may not accept it in its present form, I hope that we shall receive an assurance that the principle of reciprocity is not ruled out.

Mr. Charles Royle: Because of the Guillotine Motion I do


not intend to speak for long, particularly as my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George) has made such a powerful plea.
I am concerned about the situation which is developing in some parts of the Commonwealth following the introduction of the Bill. The hon. Member for Carmarthen suggested that the proposed new Clause might go some way towards alleviating the feelings that are growing in some parts of the Commonwealth. There can be no doubt that in some areas, particularly Jamaica, there is a growing feeling that they want to keep English people out of their country—all because of the introduction of this Measure. If one goes about the streets of Jamaica now one hears, for the first time, utterances like, "White man go home".
I am concerned about this, because it is a blow against everything we consider to be best for the Commonwealth. Anything that we can do of a reciprocal character will help the well-being of the Commonwealth generally. It is on this ground—because I can see these feelings against us growing because of the Bill—that I urge the right hon. Gentleman to accept the new Clause.

Mr. Michael Foot: I wish to raise one main question. Prior to the decision of the Government to introduce this Measure, and when they had consultations—as they claim to have had—with Commonwealth countries, was this question, concerning those Commonwealth countries which now allow free entry, raised? Was this subject raised before the Bill was introduced, or has it been raised in the discussions with Commonwealth countries since its introduction? Will the Minister give an account of any such discussions that have taken place and say whether any suggestion was made by any Commonwealth countries that they would introduce legislation of the type to which reference has been made?
Whatever may be the Minister's reply, I am strongly in favour of the proposed new Clause. Judging by the way in which the Bill was originally introduced, none of us believe that proper consultations were held and therefore, it is extremely important for us to know whether there were any such consultations regarding the question of similar

legislation being introduced by other Commonwealth countries. In any case, whatever the answer may be, did the Government make a calculation of the economic loss to this country which would result from other Commonwealth countries following their example and introducing similar legislation?

Mr. Donald Chapman: My hon. Friends have already mentioned Jamaica and I wish to add a few words on this subject. Two things should be realised about the situation in that country. First, legislation already exists in Jamaica to restrict the entry of people from Britain. In fact, that legislation was passed when Britain had control over Jamaica's internal affairs, tout it has since been decided by the independent Governor of Jamaica not to use that legislation.
We should remember, therefore, that it was we who imposed the restrictive legislation and that it is the independent Jamaica which has relaxed the restrictions and said, "By all means, let in every Englishman who lands". The Prime Minister of Jamaica has gone so far as to say, in effect, "Let them all land. We will sort out afterwards whether there are some undesirables who ought not to have been allowed to land". He has put the accent on the right to land and to enter. This has been done by the independent country, whereas we, the Mother Country, have imposed restrictions.
The second fact to be remembered is that Jamaica is adopting that attitude in spite of her unemployment problem. In Jamaica, there are about 600,000 or 700,000 people in the adult working force, and of those nearly 100,000 are totally unemployed. Among young men particularly, those between 15 and 25 years of age, about one in five or even one in four is totally unemployed. Jamaica has taken her stand not just "to attract brains but in a spirit of liberalism, saying that, despite her internal difficulties, free entry will be allowed to every British citizen or citizen from other parts of the Commonwealth as a matter of principle, because she believes in our great Commonwealth.
I should have thought that that was worthy of a little reciprocity. It is a wonderful gesture for Jamaica to have


made, and I hope that the new Clause, or something like it, will be used to show our satisfaction, if no more, at the gesture which has been made.

Dr. Alan Glyn: Is not the number of British people or other Commonwealth citizens going there very small in comparison with the number coming from Jamaica to this country? Further, does not the hon. Gentleman agree that that very small number will not in any way jeopardise employment prospects in Jamaica?

Mr. Chapman: What the hon. Gentleman does not know—I will tell him, though it is a little difficult to put it accurately in a few words—is that the number of white or British immigrants per 1,000 of population in Jamaica is greater than the number of Jamaican immigrants coming here per 1,000 of the population.

Dr. Glyn: But is it not a fact that the majority of those who go over there are of independent means and do not go for jobs?

Mr. Chapman: Yes, but they put a considerable strain on Jamaica's resources, her balance of payments and others matters. Jamaica has a very big import bill for food. This is one of her economic problems. In fact, a large number of people there could add to problems of that kind. There are many problems both ways. There are advantages and disadvantages, but the Jamaicans have taken their stand on principle. That is the way in which the Prime Minister of Jamaica announced his original decision.

Mr. David Weitzman: The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) said that the principle of reciprocity made nonsense of the Bill. We have always been proud of our liberal tradition, using the word "liberal" in the best sense, in admitting people to this country.
I put this question to the Minister of State. Will he not agree in principle that, where a member country of the Commonwealth freely admits citizens of this country, it is right and proper that we should freely admit citizens from that country to Britain?

4.45 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Renton): The noble Lady the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George) and those who have supported her new Clause have made their case in a very temperate way, and I shall do my best to answer it. It raises considerable difficulties of both practice and principle.
As I understand it, there are only four countries or self-governing Independencies of the Commonwealth which at present freely admit people from the United Kingdom. They are Jamaica, India, Pakistan and Cyprus. All the others have restrictions of one kind or another. India, Pakistan and Jamaica happen to be the three Commonwealth countries from which by far the largest numbers of immigrants came here last year—about 90,000 altogether—and, of course, many more might try to come from those countries in the future. Therefore, one practical result of the new Clause would be to enable large numbers of people to come from those three countries, which would make our proposed control largely ineffective.
The noble Lady has referred to the attractions for British citizens of going to Commonwealth countries, and the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) asked whether the question of reciprocity was the subject of consultation before the Bill was introduced. I shall answer the hon. Gentleman first. The consultations, of course, were confidential and they have been very extensive, but I will say this in answer to him. Before introducing the Bill, we bore in mind all the effects it would have, including the possibility of some modification of reciprocity.
My answer to the noble Lady is that, just as we shall continue to welcome to this country genuine visitors from the Commonwealth, people with skill and business people, among many other categories whose position has been considered during the passage of the Bill, so, we believe, Jamaica, India, Pakistan and Cyprus, whatever change they may make in their laws, will continue to do likewise.
I come now to the question of principle, since it is not merely the practical effect which we ought to bear in mind here, although that is important. The


new Clause would do even more than I have so far explained. It would mean that our own immigration policy would cease to be decided by the United Kingdom Government under powers given by our Parliament and would instead be decided by Governments of other Commonwealth countries. All they would need to do is pass a law giving reciprocity and then, if the new Clause were accepted, that law would, in effect, become part of our law.
I say that that would be undemocratic. It would be a way of getting round a decision of the British Parliament, and the result would be somewhat fantastic.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: If the new Clause were accepted, the principle would have been accepted by the British Parliament and it would, therefore, be only a matter of implementing a decision of the British Parliament.

Mr. Renton: I say that, in any event, this is not a principle which should be accepted by the House and passed by the British Parliament in that way. I will explain why.

We introduced the Bill because our country is already overcrowded and is certain to become more so. It will become more so, I agree, even with the Bill; but it surely must be for the United Kingdom Government alone to make decisions affecting immigration into this country. Such decision will be made in the light of employment prospects, economic expansion and other factors which vary from time to time.

I hope that hon. Members opposite will see the strength of the argument I have put and will, in the circumstances, think it best not to press the new Clause.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I find the Minister's reply totally unsatisfactory. He failed to answer the very strong case which has been made by my hon. Friends, and I content myself with saying that I hope that they will register their opinion in the Lobby in support of the new Clause.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 167, Noes 233.

Division No. 100.]
AYES
[4.50 p.m.


Ainsley, William
Fletcher, Eric
Key, Art, Hon. C. W.


Albu, Austen
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
King, Dr. Horace


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Lewis, Arthur (west Ham, N.)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Forman, J. C.
Lipton, Marcus


Beaney, Alan
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J,
Galpern, Sir Myer
MacColl, James


Bence, Cyril
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
McInnes, James


Benson, Sir George
Ginsburg, David
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Blackburn, F.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
McLeavy, Frank


Blyton, William
Gourlay, Harry
Macpherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Boardman, H.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Bowen, Orderly (Cardigan)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Manuel, A. C.


Bowles, Frank
Griffiths, w. (Exchange)
Mapp, Charles


Boyden, James
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Marsh, Richard


Braddock, Mrs. E, M.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mason, Roy


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Mayhew, Christopher


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hannan, William
Mendelson, J. J.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Millan, Bruce


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hayman, F. H.
Milne, Edward


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Mitchison, G. R.


Callaghan, James
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Monslow, Walter


Chapman, Donald
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Moody, A. S.


Cliffe, Michael
Holman, Percy
Morris, John


Cronin, John
Houghton, Douglas
Moyle, Arthur


Crosland, Anthony
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mulley, Frederick


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)


Darling, George
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Oliver, G. H.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Oram, A. E.


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hunter, A. E.
Owen, Will


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds W.)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Parkin, B. T.


Deer, George
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Paton, John


Dempsey, James
Jeger, George
Pavitt, Laurence


Diamond, John
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Peart, Frederick


Dodds, Norman
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Prentice, R. E.


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Probert, Arthur


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Randall, Harry


Evans, Albert
Kelley, Richard
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Fernyhough, E.
Kenyon, Clifford
Robertson, John (Paisley)




Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Stonehouse, John
White, Mrs. Eirene


Ross, William
Stones, William
Whitlock, William


Royle, Charles (Salford, West)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John
Wilkins, W. A.


Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)
Willey, Frederick


Short, Edward
Swain, Thomas
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Swingler, Stephen
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Symonds, J. B.
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Skeffington, Arthur
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Woof, Robert


Small, William
Thornton, Ernest
Wyatt, Woodrow


Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Snow, Julian
Wade, Donald
Zilliacus, K.


Sorensen, R. W.
Wainwright, Edwin



Spriggs, Leslie
Warbey, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Steele, Thomas
Weitzman, David
Mr. G. H. R. Rogers and


Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Mr. Lawson.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McAdden, Stephen


Aitken, W. T.
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
MacArthur, Ian


Allason, James
Gammans, Lady
McLaren, Martin


Arbuthnot, John
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Maclean, SirFitzroy (Bute&amp;N. Ayrs.)


Atkins, Humphrey
Gilmour, Sir John
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Barlow, Sir John
Glover, Sir Douglas
McMaster, Stanley R.


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
MacPherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Bell, Ronald
Goodhart Philip
Maddan, Martin


Biffen, John
Goodhew, Victor
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Biggs-Davison, John
Gower, Raymond
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Marshall, Douglas


Bishop, F. P.
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.
Marten, Neil


Black, Sir Cyril
Green, Alan
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)


Bossom, Clive
Gresham Cooke, R.
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Brume-Arton, A.
Gurden, Harold
Mawby, Ray


Box, Donald
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mills, Stratton


Braine, Bernard
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Montgomery, Fergus


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Morgan, William


Brooman-White, R.
Hastings, Stephen
Morrison, John


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Hendry, Forbes
Nabarro, Gerald


Bryan, Paul
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Neave, Airey


Bullard, Denys
Hiley, Joseph
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Burden, F. A.
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hirst, Geoffrey
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden)
Hobson, Sir John
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Holland, Philip
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hollingworth, John
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Channon, H. P. G.
Hopkins, Alan
Partridge, E.


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hornby, R. P.
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Peel, John


Cleaver, Leonard
Hughes-Young, Michael
Percival, Ian


Cole, Norman
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Collard, Richard
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Cooke, Robert
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pitman, Sir James


Cooper, A. E.
Jackson, John
Pitt, Miss Edith


Cordle, John
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Pott, Percivall


Corfield, F. V.
Jennings, J. C.
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Costain, A. P.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Coulson, Michael
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Prior, J. M. L.


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Othe


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Pym, Francis


Critchley, Julian
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Rawlinson, Peter


Cunningham, Knox
Kershaw, Anthony
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kimball, Marcus
Renton, David


Dance, James
Kirk, Peter
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


de Ferranti, Basil
Kitson, Timothy
Ridsdale, Julian


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lagden, Godfrey
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Doughty, Charles
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Drayson, G. B.
Leather, E. H. C.
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Duncan, Sir James
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Russell, Ronald


Eden, John
Lindsay, Sir Martin
Scott-Hopkins, James


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Sharples, Richard


Elliott, R. W. (N'castle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Litchfield, Capt. John
Shaw, M.


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Longbottom, Charles
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Farr, John
Longden, Gilbert
Smithers, Peter


Fell, Anthony
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Finlay, Graeme
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Spearman, Sir Alexander







Speir, Rupert
Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Wall, Patrick


Stanley, Hon. Richard
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Ward, Dame Irene


Stevens, Geoffrey
Turner, Colin
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Studholme, Sir Henry
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Webster, David


Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Tweedsmuir, Lady
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Talbot, John E.
van Straubenzee, w. R.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Tapsell, Peter
Vane, W. M. F,
Wise, A. R.


Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Vickers, Miss Joan
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis
Woodhouse, C. M.


Temple, John M.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Woollam, John


Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Worsley Marcus


Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Walder, David



Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Walker, Peter
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Whitelaw and Mr. Batsford.

New Clause.—(COMMONWEALTH IMMIGRANTS APPEAL TRIBUNAL.)

(1) A tribunal to be known as the Commonwealth Immigrants Appeal Tribunal (and hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) shall be set up by the Secretary of State for the purpose of hearing appeals under section two of this Act.

(2) The Tribunal will consist of two divisions one of which shall be known as the general division and the other as the medical division.

(3) The general division of the Tribunal shall consist of not less than three persons appointed by the Secretary of State one of whom shall be a barrister or solicitor of not less than ten years' standing.

(4) The medical division shall consist of three duly qualified medical practitioners or consultants appointed by the Ministry of Health.

(5) Any person aggrieved by any decision of an immigration officer under section two of this Act may appeal to the Tribunal.

(6) Any person aggrieved by any decision of the immigration officer or a medical inspector under paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of section two of this Act may appeal to the Tribunal.

(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe the manner and time in which appeals shall be brought under procedure to be followed under this section.

(8) Regulations made under this section shall be laid before Parliament and subject to approval by resolution of each House of Parliament.—[Mr. E. Fletcher.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

The Chairman: It will be permissible also to discuss the Amendments, in page 2, line 37, after "officer", to insert:
or on appeal from him, the Commonwealth Immigrants Appeal Tribunal";
in page 3, line 14, after "inspector", to add:
or on appeal from him to the Commonwealth Immigrants Appeal Tribunal".
In page 4, line 24, at the end to insert:
(6) Where any person is dissatisfied with any decision of the immigration officer under section

two of this Act he may appeal to the Commonwealth Immigrants Appeal Tribunal.
(7) The Commonwealth Immigranst Appeal Tribunal shall consist of four persons to be appointed by the Secretary of State and a chairman who shall be a barrister or solicitor of not less than ten years' standing who shall be appointed by the Lord Chancellor.
(8) Regulations may be made by the Secretary of State prescribing the manner and time within which an appeal shall be brought and the procedure to be followed at the hearing of the appeal.

Mr. Fletcher: We had a certain discussion on this matter in Committee, but we put the Clause down for discussion on Report for two reasons. The first is that we think that this is a vitally important matter, and the second is that the considerations which can be advanced in its favour are even stronger now than they were in Committee. I say that for two reasons. The situation has changed since Committee, in that the Home Office has published the draft instructions to immigration officers, which have, no doubt, been widely read by hon. Members and which will, no doubt, be even more widely read in the next few months by every intending immigrant to this country.
Whatever else may be said about the details of those instructions—and I hope that we shall have an opportunity to discuss them later—an observation which can be made at once and with which all hon. Members will agree is that the instructions recognise that there will be several doubtful or borderline cases. They also recognise that in these doubtful cases the decision will be left to the discretion of the immigration officer, subject only in certain cases to reference to the Home Office.
It is now becoming apparent to me and to my hon. Friends how the Bill will work out in practice. I think that we shall find that the change will be that while hitherto people have entered this country from the Commonwealth as of


right, from now on there will be a control and limit on the numbers of immigrants. In future, nobody will venture to spend the fare and incur the other expenses of coming to this country unless he thinks that he has a reasonable chance of landing here. In order to decide that, he will study the draft instructions.
Therefore, there will not be many cases in which immigrants will venture to come here without having some prospect of landing when they arrive. We insist that there should be an appeal from the immigration officer's decision to a tribunal because we now think that there will be only a limited number of cases and that in those cases it will be particularly important that the decision of the immigration officer should not be final but that there should be a reference to an appeal tribunal.
We do not think that any of the reasons advanced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General when he resisted this proposal in Committee are valid any longer. For example, one of his arguments was that some delay would be involved and that there would be thousands of appeals and that there would be no room to detain persons awaiting the hearing of an appeal, and so forth. However, it now appears that the only cases in which an appeal will be required will be those doubtful cases, which the White Paper itself recognises will arise. They will arise when a person wants to come here partly to work and partly to study, when there will be the question of whether he is a bona fide student; they will arise under Clause 31 as to whether a relative falls within the category of near-relative which enables him to come into the country because he has a relative already here; they will arise with the case of the fiancée who wants to get married here but who may not want to do so within the stipulated three months; and there will be similar cases.
It is now recognised in principle that in legislation affecting the rights of property and, what is more important, the rights of personal freedom and liberty and status, it is not good enough to leave the decision to the arbitrary discretion of one individual. It has been recognised that there should always be a right of appeal to some tribunal. I am concerned not with the detailed

machinery of how the tribunal should be set up. I envisage some appellate tribunal which could hear these cases and deal with them without delay.
There is another important reason why I hope that the Home Secretary will reconsider the Government's attitude in Committee. One of the reasons the Attorney-General gave for resisting this provision was:
In many cases admission may be refused not on acount of any personal idiosyncracies of the individual, but because sufficient numbers have already been admitted.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th February, 1962; Vol. 653, c. 354.]
Surely that cannot be right. The only ground in the instructions on which an immigration officer has a right to refuse admission or attach conditions is because of something personal to the indidual applicant. It is quite irrelevant to say that a certain number of people have entered the country. I hope that the Home Secretary will make this clear, because what the Attorney-General said seems to be entirely inconsistent with what is now said in the draft instructions to immigration officers. I hope that as a result of this discussion it can go out that nobody qualifying under these instructions, or under the Bill, will be refused admission not because of some personal idiosyncrasies, but because of some other and quite adventitious reason.
Time is precious today and I have made the point which I wanted to make. I believe that a question of personal liberty is involved and that it can be dealt with adequately only if there is a right of appeal in all cases from the immigration officer to some appellate tribunal.

Mr. C. Royle: The Opposition have now realised that it is inevitable that the Bill will become a Statute and so the things which we said about it earlier have gone by the board and our object must now be to make the Bill as lenient as we can. It is, therefore, valuable to consider any question of justice in individual cases.
Throughout our national and Commonwealth life there are many ways in which appeal tribunals can be set up. It is asking very little to ask the Home Secretary to accept the new Clause, for it is a safeguard. Immigrants will be


coming full of anxiety and worry and into a new atmosphere and new conditions. Many of them may find the questions which they are asked difficult to answer merely because of nervousness. Is it not right that, if the decision of the immigration officer goes against them, there should be some higher authority to whom they could appeal in order to have the opportunity of putting their claim to remain in the country?
I confess at once that I am much happier about the Bill now that I have seen the draft instructions to immigration officers, but the very existence of the draft instructions proves the necessity for a higher court of appeal. It is an acknowledgment by the Home Secretary that there will be individual difficult cases. I appeal to him with all the sincerity I can muster to give way on what at this stage of our consideration of the Bill we regard as a most important matter.

Dr. Alan Glyn: There is a certain amount of force in the arguments presented by hon. Members opposite. As my night hon. Friend the Home Secretary said at an earlier stage of the Bill, there are considerable practical difficulties about holding people whilst a tribunal sits. I hope, however, that my right hon. Friend will think seriously about meeting the wishes of the House in this matter.
I am sure that nobody likes to have the decisions resting with an immigration officer. That is not casting aspersions on the judgment of an individual officer. There is, however, a case for machinery for appeal if it could be devised simply without involving large numbers of people being held at the ports waiting for the tribunal to sit. I shall be interested to hear what my right hon. Friend has to say on this subject.

Mr. Donald Wade: I welcome the instructions that are being given to the immigration officers. The representations that have been made to the Government since the Bill was introduced have had good effect, and I am glad that the Government have given way to the extent of publishing the instructions before the Report stage.
Nevertheless, there will be occasions when intending immigrants may feel aggrieved. This may arise in two

different ways: first, because of personal disqualification in the mind of the immigration officer; and secondly, for a more general reason—possibly, because a quota has been completed. The immigration officer may have received instructions from which he is led to believe that no more persons from the country in question should be allowed entry. On one or other of these grounds an immigrant may feel genuinely aggrieved.
I appreciate the point made by the Home Secretary in Committee that these problems can be dealt with more speedily by reference to the Home Office than by an appeal tribunal. The choice is not, however, a simple one between reference to the Home Office and consideration by an appeal tribunal. Surely, the tribunal would be called into being only as a last resort. In, perhaps, the majority of cases, the immigration officer would ask for a decision from the Home Office; the decision would be reached quickly and the would-be immigrant might be satisfied. There will, however, be a residue of cases in which the immigrant feels dissatisfied, in which there is a genuine grievance which he wishes to have decided by an authority other than Home Office officials. In these circumstances, it would be only right to have some kind of appeal tribunal. With that in mind, I support this proposal.

Mr. Weitzman: I add my support to the pleas made by all hon. Members who have spoken on the new Clause. The Home Secretary said something with regard to the instructions before they were issued. I forget his exact words, but the apparent intention was that they were to be made as wide and as humane as possible. Looking at them, one sees that they seek to carry out that object.
Nevertheless, the fact remains, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) said in moving the new Clause, that there may well be borderline cases in which there is room for doubt. This is a difficult matter to leave to the arbitrary decision of an immigration officer. It is true that he can telephone to the Home Office and put up a case and get a decision, but the fact remains that there may be a number of doubtful borderline cases.
We have always recognised in our judicial system and in every instance when rights are liable to be taken away from people that there should be a tribunal or right of appeal. The hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn), who supported our proposal, mentioned the practical difficulties and one realises that they may arise. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East is not committed to the precise wording of the Clause. Let us, however, have a simple tribunal, devised if necessary by the Home Secretary, to meet the needs of the case but at least ensuring that the matter is not left to the discretion of an immigration officer and giving a right of appeal to the person who is likely to suffer.

5.15 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): We considered this matter in Committee, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General spoke on that occasion and he drew attention to the fact that in dealing with individual persons immigration officers would be answerable to the Secretary of State, who is himself answerable to the House of Commons. Nothing that has occurred since the Committee stage has altered that chain of responsibility to this House, which is quite often exercised by the House, or the position of the Secretary of State, which is exercised with great responsibility.
The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) suggested that the situation had been somewhat changed by the publication of the White Paper giving the draft instructions to immigration officers. I should like to thank hon. Members who on consideration of the Bill have expressed their gratitude for the publication of this document and who, evidently, have accepted that it is drawn in liberal terms. I hope that we have made a little progress in that way. I notice that several hon. Members in this short debate have congratulated us on publishing the draft instructions both at this time and in this way.
The fact that the draft instructions have been well received by the House does not, however, make a fundamental difference to the problem of an appeal tribunal, about which I now wish to speak.

To get the operation of the Bill clear, we must realise first that a large number of Commonwealth immigrants coming in under the Bill would come in under vouchers provided by the Minister of Labour or as dependants of voucher holders.
The hon. Member for Islington, East referred to c. 354 of 6th February, when my right hon. and learned Friend made some observations to which the hon. Member referred. I have already answered the hon. Member's point on that in Committee, but I will refer to it again. I am convinced that my right hon. and learned Friend was going no further than was set down in the Explanatory Memorandum which accompanied the Bill on Second Reading and which stated:
The intention is that vouchers for this purpose will be issued to persons who can show that they have a job to come to, to those who possess training, skill or educational qualifications likely to be useful in this country, and to applicants outside these categories subject to any limit which the Government may from time to time consider necessary.
It is in the third and last category that there is a discretion with the Government in limiting the number if necessary in the light of the economic and social conditions of the time.
I am glad to see on the Notice Paper an Amendment in Clause 2, page 2, line 39, leave out from "there" to "or" in line 43, which for the first time will give an opportunity to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour to explain in detail the granting of vouchers. By the efficient expedition with which hon. Members are approaching the various Amendments and Clauses, there is little doubt that we shall reach that Amendment on this occasion. Therefore, I will not forestall description of the voucher system, which guarantees entry and about which my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General spoke in Committee. The men and women who come in on vouchers will get their entry in any event because they have their vouchers. The question of granting or not granting them a voucher is a question of policy and, in the view of the Government, is not justiciable.
Many other immigrants will come in with entry certificates. There is also a new Schedule—(Immigration Certificates)—to which Mr. Speaker referred


in ruling that the first new Clause—(United Kingdom residence permits.)—was not in order but said that it could be discussed with the third Amendment in Clause 2, page 3, line 8. When we reach the new Schedule, if we have time we can explain the entry certificate system. By the end of the day, we shall have gone a long way in explaining exactly how the Bill works. That shows the advantage of our time-table system, because it gives time for these matters to be properly discussed. This very fair system will give us an opportunity of debating the subject, and the Minister of Labour and others can explain in detail how this scheme will work.
We do not think that those with vouchers or certificates need any right of appeal. If a Commonwealth citizen comes in with a voucher or an entry certificate and he is dissatisfied he has a right to complain to the port authority or to Her Majesty's Government and so through to the House. The man with a voucher comes in. In the case of discretion covered by the draft instructions to immigration officers, the categories largely are visitors, students, business men, dependants or relatives. Here a degree of discretion is left to the immigration officer in applying the instructions which I have given to the officers.
If the immigration officer feels doubt about a case of this kind he will consult his superior officers and they will have no hesitation in submitting the case to headquarters. At headquarters it is a common thing for Ministers to be consulted for the final decision. The Commonwealth visitor or citizen who is refused admission is not held incommunicado. He can telephone friends here, if he has any, or the official representative of the territory from which he has come. If anyone expresses the intention of making representations on his behalf, either to the port authority or to the Home Office, the case is held up for that purpose for a reasonable time.
We have had experience of operating the system. Anyone who has held office at the Home Office knows that those responsible are held to be on duty day and night to deal with any cases. We have had experience of aliens administration and we have cases referred back

to us, for which we take the responsibility to the House. We do not think that for any of these categories a tribunal is necessary. Here again, these are essentially matters of policy and they are set out in the instructions to officers. We do not believe that a tribunal is the best way of handling doubtful cases. We think that they are better handled by the Executive and then brought to the House if there is doubt.
My right hon. and learned Friend was somewhat taken up and criticised in Committee for saying that there were practical difficulties. There can be no doubt that if an appeal system were set up there would be a plethora of appeals, human nature being what it is. I have no doubt that the operation of the Bill could be signally held up, and when my right hon. and learned Friend said that people would have to be detained pending appeal he made a relevant point. It would lead us for the first time in the administration of immigration laws to having to build or provide detention centres for people to await the result of an appeal. We think that that would be physically most unsatisfactory and we cannot see how it Gould be easily avoided if the appeal took a long time.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: What would happen to those borderline cases who would make an appeal, as the right hon. Gentleman said, to the superior officers and ultimately to the Home Office? Where would they be kept?

Mr. Butler: There is in the Schedules provision for a short detention on the occasion where there is some doubt or there is need for detention or isolation in medical cases. But we pride ourselves in the administration that the delay we impose will not make that detention a serious matter. It is not our intention that it should be for a long period.
If there is a system of appeal, that will not be the only difficulty. I do not think that it will be possible to have only one tribunal. If we had one it would be overcrowded by the number of appeals made to it. If, to take the other horn of the dilemma, we had a variety of tribunals, how could we correlate case law arising from appeals on these matters which are essentially matters of policy? Absolute confusion would arise from the great variety of appeals. This is a


great physical hindrance to accepting the wishes of the House in this respect. Although we fully sympathise with the ideal behind the Clause and the spirit in which it is moved, we find the physical and other difficulties too great to accept it.

Mr. Ede: One of the difficulties under Which we labour this afternoon is that we are not favoured with the presence of the real promoters of the Bill. I should feel happier in discussing this point if I saw on the opposite benches the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden). I am not at all sure that they have not given the Bill up in disgust after reading the draft instructions to immigration officers and that they are not very interested in the price that the Home Secretary will get for the pup which he has managed to sell.
The Attorney-General mentioned the problem of quota when he dealt with this subject. The numbers might already have come in. I admit that when it comes to legal niceties I often find that the draftsman has outwitted me, but I do not find any reference in the Bill to a quota or to numbers from any given area, nor do I find anything in the instructions that seems to bear on that point. We know that some countries which have had problems of dealing with immigrants over a great number of years have invented quota systems which in some cases are subject to annual revision. The British quota to the United States at times has been a certain fixed number.
I put this question when we were dealing in Committee with the subject of numbers. If we have a quota system, what is to happen if there is one place left and on the same day three separate immigrants arrive, one at Southampton, one at Liverpool and one at London Airport? The Home Secretary appears to find it amusing.

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I was only glad that with his usual perspicacity the right hon. Gentleman was bringing forward some of the difficulties which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour can answer when we come to the Amendment to which I have referred, in Clause 2,

page 2, line 39, to leave out from "there" to "or" in line 43.

Mr. Ede: As we are working under a Guillotine, I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for hinting that an authoritative reply on this point will be delivered on a later Amendment. Much as I like to hinder Government time whenever I can, it is not advisable to mop up one's own time when one is under the Guillotine.
In my experience, immigration officers when I have had quite frequent contacts with them have always seemed to endeavour to interpret instructions in what I would call—and I might well frighten the Minister of State, Home Office—a liberal manner. I recollect the problem of the Americans who came here to carry on the Beaverbrae strike. We asked the immigration officer why they had been allowed in. He said, "It was not so very long ago that we had a circular from the Home Office urging us to be very polite and accommodating to Americans, so we let them in."
5.30 p.m.
I have regarded this problem of an appeal tribunal with some hesitation, because I believe that the best safeguard in this matter lies in our having the Home Secretary himself responsible to this House. For instance, there have been cases recently of people from various countries who, it was thought, were trying to seek political asylum here, and questions have been put to the Home Secretary. Any Home Secretary with a sense of responsibility will feel that it must finally be left to him to attempt to interpret the feelings of the House and the country on this matter.
As the point which I wished to make will arise later when the Minister of Labour is to reply, I leave it for the moment in the hope that somebody else will not so prolong the discussion that I shall not get an answer.

Mr. M. Foot: The Home Secretary is an extremely persuasive fellow when he puts his mind to it. He is so skilled at persuasion that sometimes one does not know which course he is seeking to persuade us to follow. I thought that today he was deadly in the attack on his own case, because at the end of his speech he said that one of the most powerful


reasons why he could not carry out what is proposed was that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to co-ordinate the decisions of the different tribunals, particularly if he had to set up several of them in different ports.
Why is it more difficult to co-ordinate a few tribunals than all the immigration officers? His argument was advanced when we discussed appeal tribunals in Committee. He is leaving an enormous amount to the discretion of immigration officers all over the country. It would surely be much easier to ensure that a small number of tribunals acted in conformity than to ensure that immigration officers made uniform decisions. The argument which the right hon. Gentleman put forward does not hold much water.
Here we are primarily discussing doubtful cases which may affect visitors or students and a few other characters. We want to ensure that no visitor or student from the Commonwealth is unfairly treated. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Home Office moves swiftly and can deal quickly with such cases as arise. But even if he accepted this new Clause, an immigration officer would still be able to appeal to the Home Office, which would still be able to exercise its discretion swiftly.
The only question is whether the Home Office is to be judge in its own cases. This legislation is completely novel. Under it, British citizens will be denied rights which they have always had. If we are introducing such a novelty, we should at least also have the novelty of a second judgment as to whether the Home Office has behaved wisely in a particular case.
The other way in which the right hon. Gentleman destroyed his own case was where he pictured hordes of people going before tribunals. The Attorney-General's argument earlier, of course, was that all this would make it physically impossible to have appeal tribunals. Yet if the instructions which the Home Secretary has given to immigration officers are as liberal as he claims, then there will not be so many cases of this nature. Few doubtful cases will arise if the instructions are so liberal.
The right hon. Gentleman is not only persuasive. Occasionally, he can be

moved. In introducing the Bill he did not have the idea of showing the House the instructions he is giving to immigration officers. The Attorney-General is a knowledgeable fellow, but he did not know that the Home Secretary was going to do that. Nor did the Government. The announcement came, to the Attorney-General's amazement, when he was speaking about a Clause in the Bill. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was dumbfounded but was not silenced. He carried on with his speech.
We are grateful for having forced the Home Secretary to bring forward these instructions. The right hon. Gentleman's case is that his instructions will mean that there will be little difficulty. Therefore, all we ask is that there should be some other person to whom appeal can be made. The argument put forward by the Attorney-General, about the physical difficulty in accepting our proposal, collapses if the Home Secretary's instructions are as liberal as claimed by the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary himself has put a very powerful case in favour of this Clause.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: The Home Secretary's persuasive powers have failed to make any impression on me on this occasion. I hope that he will reconsider his decision. He spoke about Commonwealth ctizens in what I call "clear cases"—those who come with employment vouchers or with training and skill which will enable them to be of use to the country—but what we are concerned with here is the borderline case where the immigration officer will have a considerable degree of discretion.
The right hon. Gentleman says that an immigration officer will consult his superior officer in case of doubt and that these consultations will go on up the scale until finally they reach the Home Secretary. But that will not happen in all doubtful cases. The immigration officer will first of all use the degree of discretion which he has as to which cases he will put before his superior officers and which he will not. This is where the importance of his discretion comes in.
None of us is making any charges, and has no cause or reason so to do, against immigration officers, but we must face


the fact that we are giving great powers to officials in this Bill. We are creating a super civil servant, a sort of "Pooh Bah", a Lord High Executioner who may be able to dispose of a great many borderline cases without reference to his superior officers, or, eventually, to the Home Office. It is in that light that we must consider the Clause.
It was said earlier in the House today that every person quotes The Times when he agrees with it. I shall refer to it now, because its leader, commenting on the instructions to the immigration officers, said that it was staggered that there was to be no appeal tribunal at all. We are expecting too much of the immigration officers. We are not only giving them too much power, but we are expecting from them the wisdom of Solomon and Job. These are not ordinary qualities. I hope that the Home Secretary will reconsider. It is a matter of vital importance that borderline cases should be put before an appeal tribunal.

Mr. Fletcher: I rise to speak again only because I feel, like my hon. Friends, that whereas the Home Secretary sometimes is persuasive, I did not think this afternoon as I listened to him that he had even persuaded himself that this Amendment ought to be resisted.
The arguments for having an appeal tribunal are quite overwhelming. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) said, on the Home Secretary's own argument the new Clause is justified. The position now is that the Home Secretary has said that we are not dealing with the voucher system, but that we shall hear more about that from the Minister of Labour. There will be categories coming here with vouchers, and if they have vouchers they will be allowed in, and if they have not they will not be let in. We are dealing here with the much more limited class of case which is mentioned in the White Paper. Let us take the case of the student who seeks to come here. The immigration officer will have to consider paragraphs 12 and 13 of the White Paper. He will have to consider, among other things—and there will be some of these cases—whether the person coming in for part-time study combined with the object of doing some employment has study as his principal object. That will be very difficult. It will be a matter of

judgment involving very great discretion, and there will obviously be borderline cases about it.
Let us look at paragraph 29, which has nothing to do with the Ministry of Labour. This deals with the case of a husband who wants to join his wife over here. The immigration officer is told:
He should also consider refusing admission if there appears to be no reasonable prospect of maintenance for the man himself or for his family without recourse to public funds, or if he has reason to suppose that the wife does not want her husband to rejoin her. In doubtful cases, the immigration officer should take into account the strength of the wife's connections with the United Kingdom, including her length of residence here.
How can a judgment on that kind of case be decided in a few minutes at a port of entry? If it is decided at all, how can we be sure that a right decision will be given? How can we rely upon an immigration officer weighing up nicely in a few minutes at some port of entry, and with other immigrants waiting, questions such as how long the wife has been in the United Kingdom, what the family resources are, what the prospects are and so forth? It requires the nicest judgment, and there is all the likelihood in the world that in some cases the wrong judgment will be given.'
It is said that if the immigration officer is in doubt, he can ring up the Home Secretary or someone at the Home Office. What sort of facts will he put over on the telephone in a situation like this? Ex hypothesi, he will not have the facts, which would involve a great deal of time in inquiring into the case. One cannot take spot decisions like that at ports, and, even if one can get any help from the Home Secretary, how will there be any guidance to the immigration officer on the telephone? It is precisely in that kind of case that provision for appeal is wanted.
The Home Secretary says that a person who is aggrieved by decisions of the immigration officer, if he makes it known that he has some friends and wants to make representations—I emphasise this, and it is some concession—will be able to get in touch with his friends by telephone and consult people who would be able to intervene on his behalf with the Home Office. I hope they would, and unless they do grave injustice will be done; but even that will


take some time. It will involve delay, and the fact that a man will have to stay somewhere while his case is being examined disposes of the Home Secretary's argument that there will be technical difficulties in detaining him.
There will not be many of these cases. We are not dealing with the voucher cases. They are excluded; no voucher, no argument. It is among these students, these ex-Service men and these relatives that there will be a small number of marginal cases. There is no question of

security or of refusal on medical grounds. These are the cases in which we feel that unless there is some appellate machinery, very great injustice will be done. Unless the Home Secretary is prepared to reconsider it, I shall ask my hon. and Tight hon. Friends to express their view on the matter in the Lobby.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 164, Noes 237.

Division No. 101.]
AYES
[5.45 p.m.


Ainsley, William
Hayman, F. H.
Paton, John


Albu, Austen
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Pavitt, Laurence


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Peart, Frederick


Beaney, Alan
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Prentice, R. E.


Bence, Cyril
Hilton, A. V.
Probert, Arthur


Benson, Sir George
Holman, Percy
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Blackburn, F.
Houghton, Douglas
Randall, Harry


Blyton, William
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Boardman, H.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Bowles, Frank
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Boyden, James
Hunter, A. E.
Ross, William


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jeger, George
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Callaghan, James
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Skeffington, Arthur


Chapman, Donald
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Cliffe, Michael
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Cronin, John
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Small, William


Crosland, Anthony
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Kelley, Richard
Snow, Julian


Darling, George
Kenyon, Clifford
Sorensen, R. W.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Steele, Thomas


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
King, Dr. Horace
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lawson, George
Stonehouse, John


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Ledger, Ron
Stones, William


Deer, George
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Dempsey, James
Lipton, Marcus
Swain, Thomas


Diamond, John
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Swingler, Stephen


Dodds, Norman
MacColl, James
Symonds, J. B.


Driberg, Tom
McInnes, James
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Edelman, Maurice
McLeavy, Frank
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thornton, Ernest


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Evans, Albert
Manuel, A. C.
Wainwright, Edwin


Fernyhough, E.
Mapp, Charles
Warbey, William


Fletcher, Eric
Marsh, Richard
Weitzman, David


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Mason, Roy
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mayhew, Christopher
White, Mrs. Eirene


Forman, J. C.
Mendelson, J. J.
Whitlock, William


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Millan, Bruce
Wilkins, W. A.


Galpern, Sir Myer
Milne, Edward
Willey, Frederick


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
Mitchison, G. R.
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Ginsburg, David
Monslow, Walter
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Gooch, E. G.
Moody, A. S.
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Morris, John
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Gourlay, Harry
Moyle, Arthur
Winterbottom, R. E.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mulley, Frederick
Woof, Robert


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Oliver, G. H.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Grimond Rt. Hon. J.
Oram, A. E.
Zilliacus, K.


Hale Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Owen, Will



Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hannan, William
Parker, John
Dr. Broughton and Mr. Redhead


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Parkin, B, T.





NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Arbuthnot, John
Barlow, Sir John


Aitken, W. T.
Ashton, Sir Hubert
Batsford, Brian


Allason, James
Atkins, Humphrey
Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)




Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Bell, Ronald
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Biffen, John
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Partridge, E.


Biggs-Davison, John
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Bishop, F. P.
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Peel John


Black, Sir Cyril
Hastings, Stephen
Percival, Ian


Bossom, Clive
Hay, John
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Bourne-Arton, A.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Pitman, Sir James


Box, Donald
Hendry, Forbes
Pitt, Miss Edith


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Pott, Percivall


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hiley, Joseph
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Braine, Bernard
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Prior, J. M. L.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hirst, Geoffrey
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Othe


Brooman-White, R.
Hobson, John
Pym, Francis


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Holland, Philip
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Hollingworth, John
Rawlinson, Peter


Buck, Antony
Hopkins, Alan
Renton, David


Bullard, Denys
Hornby, R. P.
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Hughes-Young, Michael
Ridsdale, Julian


Burden, F. A.
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden)
Irving, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Russell, Ronald


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Jackson, John
Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Channon, H. P. G.
Jennings, J. C.
Sharples, Richard


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Shaw, M.


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Cleaver, Leonard
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Smithers, Peter


Cole, Norman
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Collard, Richard
Kershaw, Anthony
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Cooke, Robert
Kimball, Marcus
Speir, Rupert


Cooper, A. E.
Kirk, Peter
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Cordle, John
Kitson, Timothy
Stevens, Geoffrey


Corfield, F. V.
Lagden, Godfrey
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Costain, A. P.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Coulson, Michael
Leather, E. H. C.
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Talbot, John E.


Critchley, Julian
Lindsay, Martin
Tapsell, Peter


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Cunningham, Knox
Litchfield, Capt. John
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Curran, Charles
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Longbottom, Charles
Teeling, Sir William


Dance, James
Longden, Gilbert
Temple, John M.


de Ferranti, Basil
Loveys, Walter H.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Doughty, Charles
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thornton- Kemsley, Sir Colin


Drayson, G. B.
McAdden, Stephen
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


du Cann, Edward
MacArthur, Ian
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Duncan, Sir James
Maclean, SirFitzroy (Bute&amp;N. Ayre.)
Turner, Colin


Eden, John
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McMaster, Stanley R.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Elliott, R. W. (Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Maddan, Martin
Vane, W. M. F.


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Farr, John
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Finlay, Graeme
Marshall, Douglas
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Fisher, Nigel
Marten, Neil
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Walder, David


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Walker, Peter


Gammans, Lady
Mawby, Ray
Wall, Patrick


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Ward, Dame Irene


Gilmour, Sir John
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Webster, David


Glover, Sir Douglas
Mills, Stratton
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Montgomery, Fergus
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Goodhart, Philip
Morgan, William
Wise, A. R.


Goodhew, Victor
Morrison, John
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Gower, Raymond
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Woodhouse, C. M.


Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Nabarro, Gerald
Woollam, John


Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.
Neave, Airey
Worsley, Marcus


Green, Alan
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard



Gresham Cooke, R.
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gurden, Harold
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Mr. Whitelaw and Mr. McLaren.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Osborn, John (Hallam)

Clause 2.—(REFUSAL OF ADMISSION AND CONDITIONAL ADMISSION.)

Mr. Renton: I beg to move, in page 2, line 19, to leave out "regulating" and insert "restricting."

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment may be discussed that in page 2, line 19, leave out from "there" to the end of line 20.

Mr. Renton: During the Committee stage, the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) and others were afraid that the use of the word "regulating" implied that there was to be a detailed control of labour. I assured hon. Members that that was not our intention—indeed, it never has been our intention—but I said that I would consider the wording, particularly the use of the word "regulating" to see whether we could find some drafting which indicated that there was to be a prohibition on taking employment rather than any kind of detailed control of labour.
We are advised that, from the drafting point of view, the most simple way of doing this is to make the Amendment which I have just moved. It would be best if I reserved any comments about the Amendment being discussed with it until I have heard what hon. Members have to say about it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. R. H. Turton: I beg to move, in page 2, line 32, at the end to insert:
(c) is a bona fide visitor to the United Kingdom.
This is an attempt to put in the categories of people mentioned in the Clause the bona fide visitor to the United Kingdom. Since we last discussed this problem, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has allowed us to see the draft regulations which will be handed to the immigration officers. In these draft instructions, the following categories of Commonwealth citizen desiring to enter this country are dealt with visitors, students, Members of Parliament, people seeking employment, businessmen, self-employed people and the wives and children of Commonwealth citizens. It is remarkable that of that list bona fide visitors and Members of Parliament are the only two categories which are not mentioned in the Bill.
In the draft instructions, the Home Secretary makes his policy about visitors clear. He says:
The need to impose a control on immigration for settlement in no way diminishes the Government's desire to welcome visitors. No obstacle is to be placed in the way of Commonwealth citizens genuinely wishing to visit the United Kingdom whether on holiday or for social, family, cultural or business reasons.

I assure my right hon. Friend that I am completely at one with him in that expression of view, and I should have thought that Parliament was also. If Parliament agrees with him, then it should be shown in the Bill and not in instructions. If Parliament wishes to make its position as clear as the Home Secretary has done in his instructions, it is unprecedented that there should be no reference to Parliament's wishes in the Bill.
6.0 p.m.
I beg my right hon. Friend to think carefully about this category of bona fide visitor. If he does not like the phrase "bona fide", and prefers "genuine", that is merely a matter of drafting to which I attach no importance, but I think that something ought to be put in to deal with this problem of visitors.
This matter goes to the root of our Commonwealth relations. The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) spoke of Britain being the metropolis of the Commonwealth, and of visitors coming to it. For that reason, I beg my right hon. Friend to think again.
I see that one effect of the Amendment might be to remove from the immigration officer the power to limit the length of stay of a visitor, and I notice that paragraph 7 of the draft instructions says:
The Immigration Officer has power to impose a condition limiting a visitor's length of stay in the United Kingdom. Where this power is exercised, he can in addition impose a condition limiting or prohibiting the visitor's employment or occupation.
But I cannot believe that this is a power that my right hon. Friend really desires to exercise, and I am reinforced in that view by what my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said when we discussed this matter at an earlier stage. He said:
People may disagree with me, but I do not see how it would be possible to supervise and enforce the general imposition of conditions which applied to every Commonwealth immigrant without making it necessary for him to report to the police and register his movements like an alien."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 6th February, 1962; Vol. 653, c. 284.]
I am sure that the Government do not want to do that with Commonwealth visitors. If there was any case for having the power to limit the length of time


a visitor may stay here, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has destroyed that case by his argument.
I suggest, therefore, that the cleanest and neatest way of doing this is to include the category of visitors in this part of the Clause. If, however, by right hon. Friend has not been persuaded by his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, then I suggest that he should put visitors in some other part of the Clause which would have the effect of allowing them to come in if they were bona fide visitors, and, if necessary, subject them to a limitation as to period.
I would prefer not to have that, but I want to try to help my right hon. Friend. He has been helpful to the House, and I think that the draft instructions show that he wants the Bill to be well received, and to be carried out in a humane way that is consistent with our reputation for hospitality. If visitors are excluded from the Bill, we will forfeit that reputation.

Mr. Renton: I assure my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) that there is no doubt whatever about our desire to continue to welcome genuine visitors, and I am sure that there is no doubt about it in any part of the House. My right hon. Friend feels that this question should be dealt with by the expression "bona fide visitors" being written into the Bill, and has tabled his Amendment to subsection (2). I am sure that he will not mind my pointing out that he has gone very far in doing that, because the effect of it would be, because of the way the Clause is drafted, that a visitor who, prima facie, and for other reasons, might appear to be a genuine visitor, would have to be admitted, even though there were objections on grounds of health, or security, or criminal record.

The Amendment as drafted goes rather too far because it removes power to refuse admission to a visitor on those grounds, and also, of course, because my right hon. Friend has attached it to a subsection as to which there is no power to attach conditions, he would prevent a bona fide visitor being admitted subject to a time condition, and, as I understood it, my right hon. Friend attached some importance to the power to admit subject to time conditions.

My right hon. Friend has sought to get round the difficulty in which I think he is placed in attaching his Amendment to subsection (2) by saying that he would like it put anywhere else in the Clause, but then we come up against the further difficulty that the term "bona fide visitor" is, in any event, vague. In spite of what my right hon. Friend said, I hope that I can persuade him that the Clause as drafted, coupled with our draft instructions to the immigration officers, makes clear our desire to welcome visitors, and I say that for this reason. Subsection (3, c) already gives a right of admission to a visitor who has a means of supporting himself. Although it does not use the term "visitors", they are clearly covered by it.

Further, the White Paper explains in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 that a visitor who is coming to see relatives and who will be supported by them should be readily admitted, even though he may not have the means of supporting himself. Further—and this is relevant to what my right hon. Friend said about conditions, and to what my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said, that he hoped conditions would not become too general—the use of conditions is to be confined to doubtful cases.

It is right that we should have conditions available for use in doubtful cases, because the control might otherwise become too stringent. The use of conditions will enable somebody to come in for a period of several months, according to the time limit imposed, and of course during that time he will have the opportunity of applying to the Home Office for removal of the condition, and it will give him the opportunity of removing any doubt that there might have been when he first landed in this country.

It is not our intention—and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General made this clear, as I did on other occasions in Committee—to make the use of conditions general. We intend them to be used only in these relatively few doubtful cases. I therefore do not think that the fears expressed by my right hon. Friend are fully justified. We have considered his point of view, which we respect. We have considered it very carefully indeed. We feel that it would be a


mistake to write the expression "bona fide visitor" into the Bill, either in the place provided for in the Amendment or after subsection (3).

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Chapman: I beg to move, in page 2, line 39, to leave out from "there" to "or" in line 43.
As I understand it, this is the stage at which we can discuss the voucher system. The effect of the Amendment would be to remove from subsection (3, a) all the words concerning the issue of vouchers. That leaves us a clear field to ask questions about the system involved in the issue of these vouchers. I understand that the Minister of Labour is to give us some information. I hope that word has gone to him and that by now he is on his way here. It may be that, for once, we are moving more quickly than anybody expected, but that is a good thing, because there is still a lot to get through.
First, I want to state why I have moved the Amendment. I want to explain the principle behind it, even though it is a probing Amendment. Hon. Members on this side of the House object to the Bill, and especially to the system of regulating the flow to Britain of people seeking employment. That is why we wish to leave out all the words in the paragraph after those referring to an immigrant wishing to enter the United Kingdom for the purposes of employment. We believe that that is enough.
I want to develop the reason why we believe that it is enough. A good deal of fear has been expressed by certain people that immigrants come here regardless of the opportunities for employment. The provisions of the Bill, and all the propaganda speeches of the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) and others of his opinion, have been based on the hysterical crescendo of fear that several hundred million people from the Commonwealth would descend on Britain if the doors were left open. Nothing could be further from the truth, judged by the historical experience that we have had so far. The facts show that the total number of people coming here has been greatly influenced by the opportunities for employment which they know to exist. They have not come in in vast

numbers in years where the employment prospects have been bad.
If we examine the flow of migration into this country in the 1950s we find that the figures began to increase significantly in 1955 and 1956, and then dropped of their own accord in 1957 and 1958, when the credit squeeze was on, and when word was sent back to the West Indies, India and Pakistan, from those already here, that employment opportunities were drying up. The advice sent to those at home was that they should not travel. There is ample evidence to show that migrants do not come here when there are no jobs. That is why we believe that the right way to deal with this situation is to allow the flow to increase and decrease of its own accord. That would be the effect of the Amendment.
It might also be said that we cannot judge this matter in the light of the present situation. Over the weekend it was announced that in the Birmingham area 5,000 coloured migrants are looking for jobs. It is true that the number of unemployed among the coloured migrants has recently increased significantly. It could be argued that my case is disproved by the present situation, in which there are probably more migrants than jobs available for them.
The fact is, however, that what has been happening in recent months is that tens of thousands of migrants have come here in excess of the normal flow because of the hysterical propaganda put out by some hon. Members opposite, which has created the fear that the doors would soon be closed for good. The present flow is not of natural proportions; it has been artificially stimulated by the fear that the doors will close.
I am glad to see that the Minister of Labour has arrived. The experience of his Department in the 1950s must show that until this hysterical propaganda began the flow of immigrants has adjusted itself to the employment opportunities. The present unhappy position, with thousands of immigrants looking for jobs, is clearly explained by the propaganda put forward and the fear that has been aroused by the campaign of the hon. Member for Louth and others.
Indeed, it has been said of the hon. Member for Louth that every time he has opened his mouth in the last twelve months another boatload of immigrants has filled up in Jamaica. That is true. I tell the Minister of Labour quite bluntly that the cause of the recent high rate of immigration among coloured people has been the speeches of some of his hon. Friends. They have attracted many thousands of people who would not have come but for the fear that they would very soon no longer have the opportunity of doing so.
6.15 p.m.
Having said that in justification of the principle of the Amendment, I turn to the precise questions I want to ask about the working of the voucher system. The last time we discussed this matter was during the Second Reading debate. I want to ask the Minister of Labour a few questions, based on what he said then. First, he said that there would be three categories of people to whom vouchers would be available. I will take them in order.
First, there are the people who have definite jobs to come to. Of these, the right hon. Gentleman said:
We shall issue vouchers to all Commonwealth citizens who have a firm and genuine offer of employment in this country. Our present intention is that the employer who wants to employ a named person in a Commonwealth country will give particulars to my Department. Then, through the Employment Exchange Service, we shall seek any necessary confirmation that a job is available for that person."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1961; Vol. 649, c. 805.]
In order properly to appreciate how the system will work it is necessary to ask some questions. First, in cases of known offers and known acceptances of employment, will the Ministry of Labour issue these vouchers to the workers or to the employers? This point raises a number of problems. Hon. Members on this side of the House want to ensure that the worker and not the employer receives the voucher. If the employer receives it he can hawk it round if one applicant does not agree to fill the position offered.
Secondly, how will the voucher be issued? Is the Ministry of Labour to issue these vouchers, or will the High Commissioners' Departments in the

various Commonwealth countries do it for the Ministry? Will there be issuing centres for such vouchers in various parts of the Commonwealth? Or does it mean—as it would appear from what we have heard so far—that there will be considerable delays while postal arrangements in all parts of the Commonwealth are co-ordinated in London and vouchers issued here and sent by post to someone in the Commonwealth? I should have thought it almost essential that the Ministry have somebody in the Commonwealth to check on the persons receiving vouchers to see that they were genuine and so on. I must ask what sort of machinery the right hon. Gentleman has in mind, because surely all that cannot be done from London.
Are the Government or the Ministry of Labour proposing to intervene to coordinate recruiting for specific public services in parts of the Commonwealth? I have in mind such services as the National Health Service and hospitals. Is the Ministry to become actively interested in linking up potential workers in the Commonwealth with such public services in this country which are desperately needing labour? And not only in the public services, but, for example, in the nationalised industries.
Already, in Barbados there is a system of direct recruiting operated by the London Transport Executive. Will there be attempts by the Ministry of Labour to get the nationalised industries specifically to "set out their shop", as it were, as has been done in Jamaica, or is it to be left entirely to the nationalised boards and the services to do what they consider right? I think that the Minister will understand what I am getting at.
What is to be done about private industry? Will the Minister set out to interest those private firms which are short of employees in the possibility of direct recruiting in the Commonwealth? Will he offer his services to co-ordinate their activities as groups of firms or industries? We wish to know about the machinery and also about the encouragement which the right hon. Gentleman will give to various kinds of employees in order to make the system work.
The second category consists of people with definite skills. According to the


Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill and what the Minister has said, these people, who will be admitted with vouchers, will have definite skills needed in this country. The right hon. Gentleman said:
It will be for the Government to decide from time to time, in the light of employment prospects and needs in this country, what kinds of skill or other qualifications will be covered.
The right hon. Gentleman also said:
We are also working out with them the best way of handling this type of application."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1961: Vol. 649. c. 806].
Can the Minister tell us how this will work in parts of the Commonwealth? Does it mean that there must be direct Ministry of Labour agencies which will be appraised of the need in this country for skilled carpenters, for example, and will they have the duty of checking applications by skilled carpenters in Jamaica, for example, for vouchers to come to Britain? Surely someone will have to do some checking if this category system is to work properly, and so we must know the machinery of recruitment of people with definite skills.
The definition of skill in this country is one thing, but in Jamaica it may be something quite different. As I have mentioned before, in Britain the term "mason" has a definite meaning, but in Jamaica the same term is applied to anybody who works in the building trade with bricks or cement. So far as I can judge, there must be quite elaborate machinery for checking on the skill of an applicant and, therefore, we must know a good deal more about how the system will work.
In the last category are people with no skill and with no definite job to come to. Such people are to be admitted to a total, whatever it may be, upon which the Home Secretary decides from time to time. Here there would seem some confusion. Nobody can imagine how this will work. We understand that at any one time—the Home Secretary said it again a short time ago—the right hon. Gentleman will let in unskilled people without jobs depending on the social conditions of the time. In paragraph 20 of the instructions to immigration officers, the last sentence says that persons who require vouchers but have not obtained them are normally to be refused

admission. So far as I can understand it, this refers specifically to the balance of people who would come here not possessing any special skill or to do a specific job.
Are we to take it from the statement in the instructions to immigration officers that what might loosely be called the quota balance is not to be admitted freely at the ports subject to who turns up and at the discretion of the immigration officers regarding allowing in a certain number in any one year? Or does it mean that no one, even under the quota balance, will be allowed in unless they have applied for a voucher? This is very important: We wish to know whether anyone can get in if the quota is unfilled, or whether a person must have a voucher before leaving home.
As was asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) on two occasions, how will this work when we get large numbers of applications from different parts of the Commonwealth? If I may be forgiven for saying it, the right hon. Gentleman was rather naïve during the Second Reading debate when he said:
The third category of applications consists of people wishing to come and work here but having neither a skill nor a definite job to come to. These people, who are the majority will apply direct to my Department for vouchers.
Then there was an interruption by hon. Members who asked "Where?", and the Minister said:
The Ministry of Labour, London."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1961; Vol. 649, c. 806.]
At the time there was a good deal of laughter. Hon. Members had visions of someone in a remote part of Jamaica writing to the Ministry of Labour saying, "Dear Mr. Hare, I want to come to England. Will you please send me a voucher?" No one can imagine this working in such a simple and direct way. Undoubtedly, if the Government feel restrictive at any one period, we shall find that the number of people who wish to come in of their own accord will be greater than the total number which the Government are prepared to admit. How is it intended to decide on those who shall be admitted? Where is the queue to end?
What does "First come, first served" mean in this context? Does it mean


that the people whose letters are opened first at the Ministry of Labour will be allowed in? That would be an utterly stupid way of going about the matter. Suppose the figure were fixed at 20,000 and the first 20,000 letters happened to be from Jamaicans. Does this mean that all the balance from India, Pakistan and other parts of the Commonwealth will not be allowed in? Shall we not almost inevitably need in this sort of system some kind of quota from the main parts of the Commonwealth sending migrants here?
If, for example, after experience the Government say that the flow of people with skills and jobs leaves a balance of 20,000, will they say that they can be let in? I should have thought that inevitably the Government would have to say that on past figures they had better allow in 5,000 Jamaicans, 3,000 Indians, 2,000 Pakistanis, and so on, in order to regulate the system. I cannot think that the right hon. Gentleman meant that when he said that these
applications will be dealt with and vouchers issued in the order in which they are received
and that
the principle of first come, first served."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1961; Vol. 649, c. 806–7.]
will be applied. I cannot see it being done on the basis of the number of letters first opened at the Ministry of Labour in London.
6.30 p.m.
This is becoming a very confusing situation. My hon. Friends and I are not alone in asking these questions. I was in Jamaica not many weeks ago. There people were in utter confusion about how this system would work. There had been no effective consultation with Jamaicans about how it could work. I hope that in the interval since Second Reading the right hon. Gentleman has been able to get these very important points quite clear and that he can now explain to us a reasonably foolproof system for this voucher procedure.
Our purpose in proposing this Amendment is not only to probe the intentions of the Minister and to ask about the machinery he wishes to operate. It is also to make our objection in principle to this subsection because we believe

that the history of the last ten years has shown that, left to itself, the flow of migrants adjusts itself to employment opportunities in this country. Therefore, it would be much better to leave it to operate in that way in future.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) for raising this matter, giving us an opportunity of discussing it and then of hearing the Minister's comments on it.
I depart from the hon. Member in that I think the only practical method of working the Bill is to adopt a system of vouchers. What worries me is the exact method of operation. For the first of the three categories the hon. Member mentioned, how is this labour to be recruited and who is to recruit it? There is the possibility that in the Commonwealth there might well be what I can only describe as a racket in the sale or exchange of vouchers. There is the possibility that independent agencies might be set up with a system whereby vouchers can be bought or exchanged on the assurance of jobs being found here.
The best method may be to do the work through High Commissioners and by publishing lists of jobs, but, as the hon. Member rightly asked, who is to judge of skilled labour? I hope that my right hon. Friend will make some comment on that, because it is a difficult problem. A voucher may be issued in the Commonwealth for a specific job and when the immigrant arrives he may be unable to do that job. Then there would be a complete waste of the voucher and everything connected with it. How many of the balance of labour which is to be allowed to come to this country is to be distributed throughout the Commonwealth? Will it fit in with the various jobs here, or is there to be an arbitrary method laying down that so many will come from an individual Commonwealth country dependent on the number of applicants from that country?
I differ from the hon. Member on one point. It seems absolutely essential that the voucher should be issued long before the Commonwealth immigrant sets foot on the boat. Otherwise, people will be returned because there are not vouchers


for them. I hope that my right hon. Friend will tell us how the system is to work, so that it shall be fair to the Commonwealth immigrant and so that he will not have to go through a series of agencies to get a job. It should not only be fair to him, but it should be sure on this side so that industry requiring particular categories of individual can get those categories and not receive immigrants who are quite unsuitable for the job when they arrive.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt: I share a number of the doubts which have been expressed by the hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn). He made a point which causes many of us anxiety. If vouchers are to be issued we may reach a situation in Commonwealth countries when we have a large number of people chasing a limited supply of vouchers available. The possibility of a racket is very pertinent. We shall have a large number of people anxious to come here and inevitably they will try to find ways and means to get to the top of the queue.
Those of us who have had the good fortune to live in parts of the Far East know the tradition in Government offices that "The files move on silver wheels". The more one looks at the case presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Birhingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) this afternoon the more we understand the Attorney-General and the Home Secretary of State saying, earlier, that it is quite possible that the provisions of the Bill will never be operated. This provision seems too complicated to work at all. I am eagerly waiting to hear the Minister tell us how it can be operated in the light of the points put forward by my hon. Friend. It seems that with this method of vouchers the Government are taking a sledgehammer to crack a peanut.
What kind of consultation has gone on with the managers of Employment Exchanges in constituences such as mine? It is one of the largest receiving areas for immigrants. We have had a record of excellent work on this problem. I echo what my hon. Friend said about the increase of unemployment during the last few months caused by the rush to get into Britain before the Bill closes the gates. The Harlesden Employment Exchange, to which I pay the greatest

tribute for the way in which it has handled the flow of one-in-nine immigrants to Britain who have come to Willesden over the last decade, has, in recent months, had to cope with a terrific problem through immigrants trying to get in before the gates are closed.
I wonder whether the Minister has consulted officers like Miss Maclean on the system to be used to integrate people into the labour force in communities such as that in my constituency, where there is a high rate of employment in factories, and in the Central Middlesex Hospital, which would not run for five minutes without the immigrants who have enabled it to keep going. I should like to know whether the Minister has examined other than the voucher system ways and means which would allow him to accept this Amendment.
The techniques which have been employed, the persuasion and ways in which employers' organisations have been co-ordinated and especially consulted, have been of tremendous importance. All this has been thrown on one side. The imposition of this Bill has meant that the good work which has gone on in my constituency for the last ten years has gone entirely to rack and ruin in the last few months. This is a heavy responsibility on the Government, and I hope that the Minister will tell us a little more about the important issues raised by my hon. Friend before we go through the remainder of the Clause.

Mr. Gower: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) has done a great service in raising the matter in this form. The points which he raised are of substance. On the other hand, he may well be exaggerating some of the difficulties. In the first place, I disagree with him that this problem would best be left to itself and that it would rectify itself through natural causes such as the ebb and flow of employment in this country. I do not think that that is necessarily the case. It is far more likely that, irrespective of the employment level in this country, people would come here not merely from those countries from which they have come in the last few years but also in increasing numbers from other Commonwealth countries.
Like the hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn), I feel that the voucher system is probably the best way to deal with this problem, and that the hon. Member for Northfield may have exaggerated the difficulties which will be faced. Let us take a simple example. A certain number of people are required to work as nurses in hospitals. It will not be extremely difficult to find out whether people in certain Commonwealth countries are suitable for that work. Similarly, a certain number are required for work on the railways and other transport systems. Again, I suggest, it will not be an insuperable obstacle, and we should be able to devise a system by which we can recruit the requisite number of people for that work. We already have a certain amount of experience in recruiting for hospitals and transport.

Mr. Chapman: I did not say that the obstacles are insuperable. I asked who would do the work. Will the Ministry of Labour provide machinery in the Commonwealth and will it co-ordinate the activities of hospital boards and of nationalised industries, for example? Those are the questions which I am asking.

Mr. Gower: I was trying, to the best of my ability, to reply to some questions which the hon. Member posed. I imagine that what I said will also apply to many other categories of trade and occupation. It may well be that in a few limited cases difficulties will arise. The hon. Member referred to one or two cases in which the terminology is different in various Commonwealth countries. For example, the term "mason" has a different meaning here from that in Jamaica. I accept that, but surely those cases are a minority, and in most cases the descriptions of a certain kind of employment are very much the same in most of these countries and the kind of skill which goes with a particular kind of employment is easily identified in each case.

Mr. Albert Evans: The hon. Member mentioned people employed in hospitals and on the railways. In the instructions issued to the immigration officers by the Home Secretary it will be seen that certain categories of people are exempt from

the necessity to have a voucher. One of these categories is persons in the service of a Department of the United Kingdom Government. These persons need not have a voucher. I am sure that we all wish to know whether people in hospitals or in the nationalised enterprises are included within that paragraph.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Gower: I do not dispute that statement, although my impression is that such persons would not be in that category because they would be employed not by a Government Department but by a board, which is loosely within the province of a certain Minister but is not a Government Department. Probably that wording is strict.
The hon. Member for Northfield also said that these difficulties are real—I accept that—and he implied that the present position is ideal. If we solve the problems which he posed, as I think we shall, it will be far superior to the somewhat uncontrolled method which we have at the moment, whereby people come here without any kind of tabulation and in many cases without our knowing their qualifications. We know that many of them are unable to obtain employment immediately. At present, a substantial number of them are unemployed.
There was an Answer to a Parliamentary Question a day or two ago on the subject from which I understand that the number of these people who are unemployed is proportionately greater than the number of unemployed people who have been resident in this country permanently. In other words, people who come from Commonwealth countries are the first victims of local or temporary unemployment.
If we have a system by which this is worked out, and if these people are brought into the country in this orderly way, I suggest that it is much more likely that they will be assisted to find jobs which are commensurate with their abilities and in which they have every likelihood of permanent and good employment. To that extent, on balance, this should be a great help to them.
I want to make reference to suggestions which have been made that these vouchers may be bought and sold—and


I hope that my hon. Friend noted what other hon. Members have said about this. I sincerely hope that under the arrangements which my right hon. Friend has in mind there will be no possibility of that happening. My hon. Friend the Member for Clapham made the very good suggestion that the High Commissioner's office might be primarily responsible for making these vouchers available in the various countries, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider that.
It seems to me that if this were done we could easily evolve a system by which no unauthorised employment agency would deal in these vouchers. That should not be difficult. In other words, a voucher would be issued to a particular person and his name would be on the voucher, and should that person not take up the voucher, there must surely be a system of cancelling it. These vouchers must be non-transferable and non-negotiable. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give that assurance tonight.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. John Hare): The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) has been very helpful in giving me a chance to answer a large number of questions which he and other hon. Members opposite, as well as two of my hon. Friends, have put to me. I will try to answer them.
I do not want to take strong issue with the hon. Member on the beginning of his speech. He knows as well as I that the Government felt that they had to take action because of the rise in the number of immigrants during the last three years. It is no use saying that the Bill is simply the result of something said by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne).
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made the figures very clear in the House on 6th February. In 1959, the net immigration into the United Kingdom from the rest of the world was estimated at 44,000; in 1960, it was 82,000; and in 1961 it was probably over 160,000. But I will not pursue that point, because the hon. Member fairly said that what he wants is to find out in more detail than I have been able to give since my Second Reading speech the way in which this scheme would work.
There are three categories which, for purposes of clarification, I shall call A, B and C. First, in category A are people who have genuine jobs to come to. Secondly, in category B, are those who possess skills or qualifications which would be of particular value to us in Britain. I should like to dwell for a moment on the sort of skills we have in mind, because several hon. Members asked me about this. The kind of people we would include in this category are those with university degrees, or professional qualifications, including teachers and nurses; skilled craftsmen, especially in engineering and building occupations; and draughtsmen and higher technicians. In working out the exact details we must consult with our friends in the Commonwealth, for it would be wrong for us to try to lure away from the Commonwealth skilled men who are essential to the development of their own countries. The third category—category C—will consist of all other people who want to come to this country to take up employment.
For a person in category A—that is someone who has a specific job to go to, and this answers the point raised by the hon. Member for Northfield—we plan that the application for a voucher will be made by the employer to the local office of my Department. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Northfield expressed the fear that employers might try to transfer these vouchers or perhaps juggle them in some way. I can assure him that that cannot happen. We shall normally send the voucher to the employer for forwarding to the man in question. In other words, it will go to the employer with whom the man is to take up work. The employer will then send it overseas to the person concerned. Naturally, that person must come into this country. He will have a passport. That must be produced and his voucher can be checked against it so that there is a double check.
I can assure hon. Gentlemen who are worried—as I am—about this possibility of irresponsible trafficking in vouchers that no vouchers will go to any private agencies. They will normally go to the employer so that we shall have a check that there is a genuine job available for the applicant. Otherwise, we shall send


vouchers either direct or through the agency of the Government in the territory concerned.

Mr. J. Grimond: If an employer says that he has a vacancy for a certain type of labour and that he wishes to get someone from a part of the Commonwealth, must he state the name of the individual or can he obtain an open voucher?

Mr. Hare: indicated dissent.

Mr. Grimond: If he cannot, is it the case that he cannot obtain an open voucher under any circumstances?

Mr. Hare: An employer could not do that. That answers a further question asked by the hon. Member for North-field, about what we are doing to help recruiting.
The Ministry of Labour has, in suitable circumstances, drawn the attention of employers to the possibility of recruiting suitable labour in territories where it is available. Our advice and assistance will be available to firms who seek our assistance in this matter, and this applies equally to private employers as well.
That covers the issue of vouchers to people in category A. I now come to those in categories B and C. The arrangements applying in each country will depend on the final outcome of the consultations we are having with the Governments concerned, and I can assure hon. Members—and in particular, the hon. Member for Northfield, who was concerned about the consultations with Jamaica—that very detailed consultations are going on. I know that the hon. Member for Northfield was in Jamaica at the time of the Second Reading of the Bill and I can assure him that these consultations have carried us a long way; to the point, I think, where the general picture is clear.
In some countries—and this is the result of consultation and agreement—applications for vouchers will be sent direct by the applicant to my Department in London, as I said on Second Reading. Countries like Barbados, Pakistan and Australia consider that this is the method best suited to their conditions and this is what they have agreed with us.
In other countries, they will be sent to the British High Commissioner or the local Government, who will then forward them to London. With possibly a few exceptions, we shall send the vouchers to the High Commissioner or the local Government for forwarding to the applicant. I was asked how this machinery will work and whether it will become too centralised. The answer is that with the help of the High Commissioner, the local Government and the Commonwealth Relations Office we intend to see that we keep in constant touch locally on these matters.

Mr. Pavitt: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain, since these are to be sent to the High Commissioners, whether special officers will be appointed and attached to the High Commissioners—as is the case with the Board of Trade for the purposes of that Department—and whether there will be an increase in the establishment of the High Commissioners' officers to deal with this matter?

Mr. Hare: This is being worked out. There will obviously be some increase in the number of special officers required to deal with this work. We should not be jealous about whether they are appointed to the Ministry of Labour or the Commonwealth Relations Department, for all we want is that an efficient job should be done.
It is by their decisions on the number of vouchers to be issued that the Government will regulate the flow of immigrants. Vouchers will be issued freely to all of those in categories A and B. We intend to regulate the flow by controlling the issue of vouchers for those in category C; that is, those without jobs to come to or without special qualifications. The rate at which vouchers are issued to category C applicants will be that which the Government judge, at any time, to be right having regard to our capacity to absorb immigrants into our national life. Obviously, employment prospects will be one important factor. The housing situation will be another, just as educational facilities, and so on, will have to be considered insofar as they relate to our ability to assimilate and absorb the immigrants who want to come here.
The rate at which vouchers are issued will have to be kept under review and will be subject to alteration, perhaps at short notice, as the circumstances change. The House already knows that in the case of category C applicants we propose to work, certainly to begin with, on what we believe to be the fairest principle—that of first come, first served.

Mr. Chapman: How?

Mr. Hare: The hon. Member asks "how", but the Government must do what they think is fairest. If the sort of circumstances which hon. Members have mentioned arise we may have to adjust our arrangements to see that one territory is not getting an unfair advantage over another.

Mr. Fletcher: This is most important. We understand that there will be no numerical limit for categories A or B, but that there is to be a numerical limit for category C people. Will that be a global limit, or will there be a limit for individual territories? Will it be a monthly limit? Where the figures will be known, will those people wishing to emigrate know what kind of limit will exist for their country so that they will know whether they are to be admitted, say, month by month?

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Hare: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting that question. The hon. Member for Northfield was very anxious that there should not be a global figure. He said that there should be figures territory by territory. We should prefer there to be a global figure, because we think that that is the fairest method—the principle of first come, first served. On the other hand, if the fears which the hon. Gentleman has expressed and which the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) may express if he speaks in a few minutes appear to have foundation, we should—and this is an undertaking I am prepared to give—have to adapt our scheme to deal with them.

Mr. Fletcher: But will the figures be published, so that immigrants may know up to what sort of limit they may be able to come?

Mr. Hare: That is something which must be considered extremely carefully. I do not think that I would wish to raise

people's hopes in that way. On the whole, I think that publication of figures in the way that the hon. Member for Northfield has in mind, country by country, would not be fair. I should like very much to consider the matter.

Mr. Chapman: This is a vital point. The Home Secretary's case on the Bill has all the time been that his power to regulate admissions and the total flow is subject to question in the House and that that will be our check on what is going on. How can we ask questions if we do not know what decisions he is making? Someone must tell us how many he is allowing in before we have any parliamentary check on what is going on.

Mr. Hare: There is a later Amendment suggesting that this should be dealt with by Statutory Instrument, and I think that it would, perhaps, be more convenient to pursue it at that stage. I have the hon. Gentleman's point, and I can address myself to it when he raises the matter later.
I was talking about the first come, first served principle. There is one exception which we wish to make, namely, that all applicants in category C who can show that they served in Her Majesty's Forces in war will be granted priority in the issue of vouchers. I think that that will be accepted by the House as a reasonable alteration to what we have already proposed.
I think that I have answered just about all the points which have been put to me, but there is one general matter which the House has not, I think, appreciated as it should. I hope that hon. Members have been able to understand from what I have said that the scheme is quite different from the permit scheme for aliens. I am glad to say that it is, in fact, very much more liberal.
Those who come within category A will not be refused entry on the ground that suitable local labour is available, as may be the case with aliens. More important still, categories B and C simply do not exist for aliens. Men and women from the Commonwealth will be able to come here without having first to obtain a job, and, when they are here, there will be no restriction on their changes of employment. In fairness, I think that hon. Members on both sides


who have expressed doubts or fears should take that point.
I have tried to answer a number of valuable and useful points. In conclusion, I emphasise that we want to work this out in amity and close consultation with our friends in the Commonwealth. If they would prefer arrangements to work slightly differently, as I have explained they do in regard to the sending in of applications, then we should fit in with their wishes so long as we were convinced that such variations would not damage the purpose behind our scheme.

Mr. Chapman: Will the Minister answer the question which we put in regard to category B? How will the skills which people profess be checked before the vouchers are issued?

Mr. Hare: As I said, this will vary. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not quite gather what I said. I told the House that we will work with the High Commissioner's office or the local Government, and it will be through those offices that this will be dealt with.

Mr. Grimond: We are all grateful to the Minister for giving us at this stage, although rather belatedly, some further information about how he sees the system working. However, after listening to him I cannot help thinking that the system will be a good deal more complicated than he believes. It will involve a considerable increase in staff, it will lead to a great many anomalies and give rise to a considerable feeling of injustice—and all this for a Bill which the Government themselves say will be in force for only a comparatively short time.
The Minister said that people in categories A and B would be allowed in without quota. Earlier, I understood him to say, with reference to category A, that he was anxious not to entice people with skills away from countries which wanted those skills and that he would have consultations on the matter with the Commonwealth Governments concerned. Does this mean that, if a Commonwealth country said that it could not spare any doctors, for instance, the Bill would be used as a method of preventing doctors from coming from that country to this? The House should

be clear about this. There are issues of personal liberty and freedom involved in the Bill which require the closest examination.
I simply do not visualise how the system will work for category C. I do not begin to understand it. On "D Day", as I understand it, the race will begin from all over the Commonwealth. That is an exaggeration, I agree, but it gives a picture of what will happen.

Mr. C. Royle: It is first come, first served.

Mr. Grimond: It will be like a competition where entries are received on Monday morning, and people will begin to apply. I simply do not understand the process by which this will be dealt with by the Ministry of Labour, the Commonwealth Relations Office, or whoever it will be. I do not believe that it will be literally first come, first served.
From our own experience, we know what happens when this sort of thing starts. Many people write in just because they always write in on Sundays, anyway. We all have that experience. Although I am exaggerating, I do not think that what I suggest is all that for from reality. Many people will say, "I might want to go, so I will put in an application". Who is to check these things and decide which are genuine and which are not?
At the next stage, as I understand it, the Minister will see how it all works. If it turns out that the first 20,000 all come from one country and he thinks that this is unfair, he will alter it. But on what basis will he alter it? What criteria will he take into account? On what basis will the quota from Pakistan, India or the West Indies be fixed? The House has a right to know. I believe that it has a right to know the answer to the question put by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) about the total numbers the Government will allow in.
Then, as I understand, we come to a further stage. The Government, presumably, will say that, for one reason or another, we can take in a few more. This is not to be a once for all operation, as I understand. They may say, "This month, or this quarter, we can take in some more". Are people then to be asked to apply again? Will all


those who failed to get in have to do it all again, and will they be told how many more places there are available? Is the whole thing to be started again from scratch with no one knowing how many will be accepted or whether they must apply again?
I feel genuinely unhappy about it and, while I appreciate that the Minister has done his best to set some of our fears at rest, I hope that he will take another opportunity during the passage of the Bill to tell us a little more about how he sees the scheme working.

Mr. C. Royle: I apologise because circumstances over which I have no control prevented me from hearing the debate until the Minister made his speech. I did hear the Minister and I listened very carefully. Unlike the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), who said that he felt unhappy as a result of what the right hon. Gentleman has told us, I am terrified. During our discussions on the Bill, we have felt that, bit by bit and day after day, we were approaching nearer to a liberal application.
When the Home Secretary published his draft regulations or draft suggestions for immigration officers, some of us felt that things were moving and that there had been a great deal of improvement since Second Reading. What the right hon. Gentleman has told us now presents a terrifying situation. The position, as I see it now, is that, instead of there being a more liberal application, there will be many fewer immigrants coming here than was envisaged during the course of our earlier discussions, for the reason that the machinery, as expounded by the right hon. Gentleman, is so difficult that I cannot see how people will be able to get here.
Let us picture the situation. Suppose an employer in London wants two people for very manual tasks, such as sweeping up a factory, and he proposes to obtain them from the Commonwealth. He has to make application to the right hon. Gentleman, who, in turn, will make representation to some agency in the Commonwealth. Can we believe that employers in London will go through all that machinery in order to get one or two manual workers? It seems to me that we shall, because of this very elaborate machinery, more and more

bring down the number of immigrants who will be admitted into this country. Has the right hon. Gentleman asked the Commonwealth Governments involved whether they are in fact setting up machinery at their end to work with his Department? It seems to me that there has been no adequate step in that direction, and that there is lack of co-ordination between the Ministry of Labour here and the Commonwealth Governments.
During his speech, the right hon. Gentleman used the word "agencies". I should like to know a little more about what he has in mind. This is a very worrying situation. Agencies could arise which would be exploiting people from the Commonwealth. A rumour is going round that certain agencies are in existence in this country which are agreeing to arrange for the passage of immigrants on the basis of a 40 per cent. interest payment on the passage money.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I raised this point with my right hon. Friend, and he gave a categorical assurance to me that that would not take place.

Mr. Hare: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman could have heard what I said. I have already made clear that we shall not send the vouchers to private agencies.

Mr. Chapman: That is not the issue. There could be legitimate activity by private employment agencies putting employers here in touch with workers in the Commonwealth countries to facilitate the procedure, but charging fantastic rates of interest and creating a great deal of exploitation.

Mr. Speaker: Order. What does not facilitate procedure is when we have an intervention upon an intervention upon an intervention.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Royle: My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) has helped me very much indeed. I obviously accept an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman, but what he said does not reassure me that the situation will toe absolutely safe for immigrants. Perhaps he will allow me to impress upon him the necessity for very great care in this matter. We should hate


to feel that there was "farming" of immigrants coming into this country, many of whom have no knowledge of matters of this kind. They could easily be rooked by people who do not seem to have very fine feelings about these things.
Under this system, the employer will go to the Minister and the Minister in turn passes on his application to the Commonwealth countries involved. They in turn will find the people for the employer who has made application to the Minister. I think that the right hon. Gentleman on Second Reading said that application would be made to the Ministry of Labour in London. That now seems to be changing. The immigrant does not apply to the Minister of Labour, St. James's Square; it is the employer who makes application.

Mr. Hare: I think the hon. Gentleman has muddled up what is happening under category A. Category A is where an employer has a job and he knows of a chap in the Commonwealth who will fill it. The employer goes to the Ministry of Labour and makes application. This does not apply to categories B and C because these immigrants do not have specific jobs and are coming here either because of their skills or because they are in the certain categories.

Mr. Royle: Perhaps the wisest thing would be for me to read what the right hon. Gentleman has said to try to get it clear, but by the time we have reached tomorrow morning we shall be too late to make complaints here. Since it appears to some of us that this is not very clear, I hope that opportunities will be given in another place for a full discussion of this question. In the light of what the Minister has said, there may well be a desire to move Amendments on this matter in another place.
I finish where I started. This matter is very complicated. It does not seem to be the liberal application of the Bill as we were expecting it to be, and I am sure that the difficulties of potential immigrants from the Commonwealth will be very much increased by what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee: The House will sympathise with the difficulties of the hon. Member for

Salford, West (Mr. C. Royle). It is difficult to follow this matter just as these things are thrown at one, however carefully my right hon. Friend explains them. Many of us are picking up these things as we go along and I am sure that we are at one in trying to follow them as closely as we can.
The hon. Member based much of his criticism upon the belief that these categories were an extremely complicated set-up, but I wonder whether that is so. He said that if we wanted to employ someone in a menial capacity—sweeping up was the example he used—we would have to go through an elaborate process of writing to my right hon. Friend, and so on.
However, I ask him to consider the employment of aliens. If one wants to employ Italians in some form of horticulture, one applies to the Ministry of Labour and the application is placed before the appropriate advisory committee, quite properly including trade union representatives, and only then can one get the Italians employed. What I am saying is that a roughly similar scheme is now in operation and it does not seem to deter employers from seeking this type of labour. I appreciate that there are differences between that scheme and that to which we have just listened.

Mr. C. Royle: These are our people.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Of course they are our people and I am not equating the two for a moment. I am only seeking to show that there are already such apparently complicated arrangements which work adequately. That may apply in this case.
I understood my right hon. Friend to say that there was a subsequent Amendment upon which he was proposing to deal more fully not only with the point raised with the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher), about whether it was advisable to give a total overall figure, but also whether the figure should be given country by country and not globally. I realise that there are major ramificatons and I do not want to pursue the matter now, if only because I hope that I have understood my right hon. Friend rightly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn)—and I should


like to say to my right hon. Friend that the hon. Member for Clapham sits on this side of the House; my right hon. Friend pointed firmly to the other side when describing him; I hope that matrimony has not upset my hon. Friend's sense of balance—spoke about category B persons. As the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party said, for the first time we have a measure of control over the export of skilled labour from Commonwealth countries. This is a major factor and I differ slightly from the right hon. Gentleman and suggest that this is a positive advantage to some of the Commonwealth countries. One of the representations which I have been receiving from some of my friends in underdeveloped Commonwealth countries is that they feel slightly aggrieved that we are taking too many of their skilled men, and they welcome the Bill on those grounds. I realise that the view of the right hon. Gentleman was slightly different.

Mr. Grimond: I fully appreciate that those countries want to retain their skilled labour and have a good case for doing so. But this is not a matter to be slipped into a Bill about immigration into this country. We do not want two Governments to be able to get together behind the scenes and make an important restriction on the freedom of movement and personal liberty.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I take the point and I think that it has been extremely helpful that it has been brought out in this discussion.
One of the examples quoted has been that of doctors, but we must remember that most doctors from the Commonwealth will be coming for training rather than employment, although that does not for a moment detract from our present reliance upon Commonwealth doctors in our medical service, to which one can repeatedly refer with gratitude. I hope that my point about the conservation of skilled labour in underdeveloped countries will be a point in favour of these regulations.

Mr. Ede: When I intervened earlier, the Home Secretary suggested that I should make my remarks when the Minister of Labour was present to answer me. The first point about which I want to be clear is at what stage there

is direct contact between the employer and the employee. As I followed what the right hon. Gentleman said, there would be no direct contact—certainly not with category C and possibly not with category B—until the immigrant's arrival. Prior to that, all transactions would be in writing.
The employer would notify the Ministry of Labour that he had a vacancy. The Ministry would see whether that was the sort of vacancy which it thought ought to be filled by an immigrant, and if it was, it would then communicate, either with the Commonwealth Government concerned or some agency in the Commonwealth territory—I am not sure from what the right hon. Gentleman said—which would see whether it could find somebody who appeared to fit the bill. If it thought so, the voucher would ultimately reach the Commonwealth citizen who would be admitted here. Only then would the employer and the employee meet for the first time.
That seems to be a very risky way of engaging labour. It reminds me of the terrible fate of Anne of Cleves, who was married by proxy to Henry VIII on the strength of a portrait by Holbein. When Henry VIII saw the lady, he said that she was not up to sample and he got Parliament to declare that she was his sister, he made her a duchess and gave her a pension of £3,000 a year. I read an account of the Reformation, written by a Catholic priest, in which he said that Anne of Cleves was the only woman whom Henry VIII made permanently happy.
It is not a slight thing to bring an immigrant 3,000, 4,000, 5,000 miles or more to this country, of whose climate he knows nothing and to an employer he has not seen.

Mr. C. Royle: What if he does not like it?

Mr. Ede: We have no evidence at all about what Anne of Cleves thought when she saw the husband. The circumstances can be very amusing, but they can be very tragic. Those of us who sometimes have complaints in our constituencies and in our domestic circles about persons who are sent from the right hon. Gentleman's employment exchanges to fill particular jobs know what personal difficulties can arise.
I am still not sure exactly what sort of quota system the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. As I understand it, he will make a survey of the labour needs of this country and will conclude how many of them are in categories B and C and can be filled by persons already in the country, possibly by moving them from one area to another. There will then be a balance in some certain professions which he will think suitable to be filled from the Commonwealth. He will issue the vouchers in accordance with that number on the principle of first come, first served.
7.30 p.m.
For how long will the period operate? Will we have a number who can be admitted during a month, a quarter or a year? Suppose that a voucher is sent to a man in the Commonwealth and he takes time to decide. There may be a delay of, perhaps, a month or two from his first getting in touch with the agency that has sent his name forward. For how long will the voucher be valid? The voucher will be issued for a job which is in existence, but a man may decide when he gets the voucher not to take it up.
I am reminded of what was said by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). I had the misfortune to serve on a bench of magistrates that met on a Monday. All the Sunday evening domestic quarrels were brought before the court on the Monday, by which time the woman hoped that she would not have to go on with the proceedings. People apply for some of these things and some of them will not take them up. For how long will a voucher operate and what steps will be taken for the Minister to be able to feel that no employee will come in answer to a voucher? In working these things out, that will be a serious matter. I understand that the quota will not be of the kind that operated in times gone by in the United States, when there was a list of countries against each of which was a number of people who could be admitted during the period for which the list remained current.
What steps will the Minister take to ensure that as between one Commonwealth

country and another, a fair distribution of the available vacancies is made? If for some reason people from a certain country do not want to fill the number of vacancies that the right hon. Gentleman allocates in a scheme of fair distribution which he, at least, is prepared to accept, serious difficulties can be caused.
I understand that the matter about which I was worried earlier does not now arise. No person in categories B and C will leave their homes wisely unless they have a voucher from the Minister of Labour. Therefore, there will be no question of three persons turning up for the last job. People will have a voucher and if they care to come, they will be admitted. They will proceed to the employer in question—

Mr. Hare: The right hon. Gentleman has it wrong. Under category A, an employer comes—

Mr. Ede: I was careful not to mention category A.

Mr. Hare: Under category B, people will get a voucher if they have certain skills. In category C, they will have neither skills nor a certain job to which to go, but they will be allowed into the country, just as they are now, subject to the quota laid down. They will not have jobs guaranteed for them, just as they do not have them now.

Mr. Fletcher: Will they have a voucher?

Mr. Hare: Yes.

Mr. Ede: For the first time, the right hon. Gentleman has used the word "quota" in a connection which makes it possible to understand his meaning. Are there to be X,000 jobs for, say, unskilled labourers in the building trade, with people coming in under either category B or category C—[Interruption] When the Home Office has briefed the Minister of Labour, I will continue, but I do not want to get either Department into trouble.
From the explanation now given, I understand that in category C the men will come here and will not know whether there is a job. We would not expect to be told the number tonight, but a number of people will be admitted in the hope that, somehow or other, it will work out all right in the end.

Mr. Gower: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ede: No. From the frequency with which he always tries to explain to us what the Minister means, I know that the hon. Member thinks that he should be sitting on the Front, Bench, but I hope that I may be allowed to get my information about the Government's intentions direct from them and not from one of their well-wishers.
When the numbers are announced, as, I assume, they will be, to what extent will they be divided into different trades and occupations and have regard to the large number of people in this country who describe themselves as general labourers, who are frequently employed on buildings, at docksides and at other places? How far will this House know? How far will the employers know?
How far will the people in the Commonwealth know what the numbers are and the trades to which they relate, so that there can be assurance that if a man leaves a Commonwealth country to travel 4,000, 6,000 or 12,000 miles to get here, he will at an early stage be face to face with an employer who will be able to satisfy his requirements? If, when he has come here—I thought that he would come with a voucher—

Mr. Fletcher: Yes.

Mr. Ede: There is some excuse for the hon. Member for Barry trying to explain to me what the Government intend. There is no excuse for my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) trying to explain.

Mr. Fletcher: The Minister has just said that an immigrant will have a voucher to come here, but will not have the promise of a job until he gets here.

Mr. Ede: If that is what the Minister said—I will carefully read HANSARD—it is not what I thought I heard him say. Assuming, however, that the man comes and then, for some reason, does not fit into the scheme of things here, how long will he be allowed to stay?

Mr. Hare: For ever. Once he comes here, he will be allowed to stay. He can change his job or do anything else.

Mr. Ede: He will not stay here for ever. All sorts of pension schemes settle that.
I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the questions I have put are questions which ought to be answered in the House before we part with the Amendment. I am more and more convinced as the debate goes on that there is every evidence that the Government did not enter on this policy with any enthusiasm. They know that they have been forced into it by people who are not favouring us with their presence this evening and the sooner they realise that the best thing they can do is to drop the whole scheme the better for all concerned.

Mr. M. Foot: The Minister of Labour has had a bad time since he spoke. Almost everyone who has spoken has said that the situation is considerably worse after the speech than it was before. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. C. Royle) said that he had thought that we were getting a few elements of liberality and an occasional gleam of light into the Bill but that when the Minister spoke we were back in a worse position than before. I entirely agree with him. As the right hon. Gentleman sat down I was reminded of those lines of Pope:
Lo! thy dread empire, Chaos! is restor'd;
Light dies before thy uncreating word;
Thy hand, great Anarch! lets the curtain fall,
And universal darkness buries all.
The speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has shown the muddle into which the Government have got the whole situation. It is a serious matter, because this is a serious part of the Bill.
The Minister of Labour got out of part of his difficulty when he was asked what the arrangements would be in different countries by saying blithely, to show his flexibility of mind, that they would be different in each country. Apparently they are and the Minister does not know what they will be. This only shows, as we have always said, that there were no proper consultations before the Bill was introduced. Then when the Government started to have consultations they had no idea how to work out the voucher scheme, and now they are working it out in a different sense in each country.
It may cause great grievances in different parts of the Commonwealth if it is found, for example, that different


methods operate in Australia and Canada compared with other parts. Before they introduced the Bill, the Government should have had consultations on the general idea of the Bill and they should have had some idea of the mechanism by which it would be operated before they ever started on it.
The Minister of Labour has also failed to give us any information about the actual numbers, either the total, or the numbers in different categories who will be permitted to come in. As far as I can see from what the Minister said, the Government will have to work out, first, how many people are coming in under categories A and B before they can ever say how many will be allowed in under category C. Has the Minister's Department made any calculations of how many people they think will come from each territory under categories A and B? Will the Minister tell us what those calculations are and what conception the Government have of the numbers, over and above those who are able to come in anyhow under categories A and B, will be allowed in?
The Minister said clearly that anybody under category A or category B will be able to obtain a voucher. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will not be able to start on this process of deciding how many can be allocated to category C until he has solved the problem of categories A and B, if the Government's concern is about the total number coming in. It will not be applications received by first post on a Monday but six months hence that will count, because the other figures have to be worked out first.
7.45 p.m.
The Government say that they are concerned about the totals now coming in, and they say that they will let them in under categories A and B irrespective of numbers. Supposing that those numbers proved to be very much comparable with the total coming into the country now, then presumably that would curtail greatly the numbers to come in under category C. I do not see how anyone can get round this. If the Government decide the numbers to be allowed in under category C at the same time as they allow people in under categories A and B, they will not know the total they

will have in the end. If they do not know that, then they will be restricting the total to a number that they think desirable.
It is a hoax on the House to say that we should go through the motions of dealing with this Bill without telling us the actual figures that the Government have in mind. It would be proper also if we were told the figures as applied to each territory, and, indeed, to each trade. If the Government had worked out the Bill in detail we could have been told all this. When my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) put a question to the Minister of Labour about numbers the right hon. Gentleman scratched his head as if that was the first he had heard of it, but it is one of the things which has been consistently raised throughout the debate on the Bill.
The Government's declared purpose is that they want to deal with numbers, but they will not tell us what the numbers are. That is why we say that we are not given any ground for voting them the powers for which they ask, because they will not tell us what they intend to do with those powers. Even now, at this late stage, the best solution for the Government, of course, is to get rid of the Bill, but we shall not be able to persuade them to do that.
There is another thing that the Minister can do to get out of this trouble. I am not the only one who is muddled, and I am not, I hope, the simplest person in the House. There are some who are more easily muddled than I am, and some of the incisive minds opposite might also well be muddled. Everybody who considers what the Minister said today is even more muddled than he was before the Minister started to speak.
The Home Secretary, who also got us into a muddle on the Bill on a previous occasion, got himself out of it partially by saying, "I will go away and think about it again and I will publish the instructions which I shall give to the immigration officers." The right hon. Gentleman got himself out of a hole and improved the Bill in the process.
I suggest to the Minister of Labour quite seriously that he should produce a White Paper comparable with the one which the Home Secretary has produced on the instructions given to immigration


officers. He should let us debate it just as we were able to debate those instructions. He has a few days before we discuss the Bill next week, and if he cannot produce the White Paper in that time he should ask the Leader of the House to postpone the discussion, which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would agree to do. Hosts of questions have been put by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields and my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West which obviously we shall not have answered in this debate.
Does the Minister think it satisfactory that we should agree to something which will affect hundreds of thousands of people throughout the Commonwealth without the House knowing what it has passed? I ask him to produce next week the document which I have suggested. In fact it will be more important for him to produce it than it was for the Home Secretary to produce his, because this will affect many more people. The right hon. Gentleman will have to publish one in the end to explain to people in the Commonwealth how they can still come into this country under the voucher system. Why does he not show it to the House of Commons first? That is a perfectly reasonable demand.

Mr. Fletcher: As my right hon. and hon. Friends have pointed out, the Minister of Labour has left the House in complete muddle and confusion. We were told in earlier debates that we would get the facts about the voucher system from the right hon. Gentleman. We have been waiting day after day, almost breathless with expectation, to hear a clear account from him. Instead, we have had a muddled and confused statement. We cannot pass on from this Amendment without knowing the facts. It is no use the right hon. Gentleman saying that there is another Amendment to be dealt with later. Under the Guillotine procedure it is doubtful if it will be reached.
We want to know clearly the answers to the following questions. Is there to be a numerical quota for people in category C, or will that quota be determined by the numbers who come in under categories A and B? It must be one or the other. Either there can be a numerical quota from time to time

for all those who have a voucher, or anybody can come in under categories A and B, and there will, in addition, be a certain amount of unskilled labour. That would be reasonable, because the unskilled labour would not be dependent upon the numbers of those with skills.
We are told that the Government want to control immigration and will do it by regulating unskilled labour. Is that to be regulated month by month? The right hon. Gentleman must know. Or will a limit be placed quarter by quarter? Can he give us the figures now? If he cannot, when will they be published? If there is to be a numerical quota, under the principle "first come, first served", with, say, a limit of 20,000 a month, and if quite a large number come from Ireland, will these Irish reduce the number of those eligible to come from the West Indies? Or does it mean that there will be one limit for those from Ireland, another for those from Pakistan and another for those from the West Indies, and so on?
We must know the answers to these questions. Immigrants from overseas want to know so that they can make their plans. Are they all to be encouraged to apply as soon as the quota is announced, or are they to be left in doubt? I do not want to repeat what others have said, but we must press for more information than the right hon. Gentleman has given up to now.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): The Question is—

Mr. Chapman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that the Minister of Labour will reply to this discussion, after which I would like an opportunity, as mover of the Amendment, to say a few words. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman intended to speak before you put the Question.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman can speak by leave of the House.

Mr. Hare: I would like to try to answer some of the points which have been raised. I do not want to detain the House too long, however. I hope that, on that understanding, I will be allowed to say something in answer to some of the questions which have been put to me and also to the "leg-pulling"


of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot).
The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) asked whether there is to be a numerical quota for category C. There will be. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale also asked how, unless we can measure the quantities of people coming in through categories A and B, we can work out how many there should be under category C. The short answer is that, if one examines the immigration figures over the last few years, it is clear that there will not be large numbers of people coming in under categories A and B. Judging by the figures of the last five, six or seven years, the vast majority will come in under category C.
The hon. Member for Islington, East asked if we are going to publish these figures. He also wanted to know whether the quotas will be assessed on a monthly or a quarterly basis. What is involved is the laying down of a rate which may be altered from time to time. I cannot say now whether it will be altered month by month or quarter by quarter. We must be guided by the considerations I stated earlier, such as the employment and housing situations and the availability of educational facilities—whether we will be able to give these new inhabitants the services which we want them to have. These are the considerations which will affect our decisions.

Mr. Fletcher: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the figures may have to be varied month by month? Will the country be told what they are, whatever the conditions?

Mr. Hare: I will consider how far we can make known from time to time the rate at which vouchers ATE being issued in category C. I do not think that the House would be wise to push me too far at this moment after I have given that undertaking.

Mr. Chapman: rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) has exhausted his right to speak, except by leave of the House.

Mr. Chapman: I would like the permission of the House, as I moved the Amendment and the main reply was to me.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must have leave of the House.

Mr. Chapman: I think that I have that leave, judging from the silence that followed your remarks, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I have tried throughout the Bill to show that, while we are working under a Guillotine, it is up to every hon. Member to speak as briefly as possible. If these comments go on record, perhaps the Minister of Labour will attend to them. He knows that I have taken a good deal of interest in the Bill.
It is a bit much for him to tell the House that elaborate consultations have been going on. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. C. Royle) and I were with the main Jamaican officials a month ago and they had not a clue as to how this part of the Bill would be operated. There has not been proper consultation. Everyone in the Commonwealth is in utter confusion as to how it may be worked. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will check on the point which arose as a result of a remark about the activities of employment agencies.
The grave danger that is arising throughout the Commonwealth is that mushroom agencies are being set up with, if one likes, the legitimate aim of putting in touch with each other prospective employers in this country and prospective employees in the Commonwealth. But there is no restriction on them and the terms they can offer, or on the bait which they can use to get the traffic established. This will lead to a lot of undesirable activity unless we guard against it in the Bill, or unless the Minister at least says that if it becomes an abuse he will take powers to check what is going on.
The astounding thing that has come out of this discussion is the amount of work which the right hon. Gentleman is now pushing on to Commonwealth Governments. It means that many Commonwealth Governments will now have to set up agencies to sift applicants in their own countries. Many of them will almost be recruiters for special skills. After all, if it is announced that particular skills are to be allowed to come here, it will be the Governments in Jamaica and elsewhere which will have to make proper arrangements for their people who have those skills to be able to


obtain vouchers and to be put in touch with the Ministry of Labour here. This is putting a quite fantastic burden on many Commonwealth countries.
Everyone who has listened to the right hon. Gentleman has been utterly confused by the situation about the final quota of unskilled people. This will be a chaotic situation. If the right hon. Gentleman says that, on the day the Bill becomes law, it is up to people to put in their applications for vouchers, he will find that tens of thousands from the West Indies alone will say, "We had better put our applications in now, because, by the time we have saved up enough for the fare, the voucher may come through". The right hon. Gentleman should consider carefully whether the system of having an unskilled balance in category C will work at all.

8.0 p.m.

It is a most confusing situation. I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in replying to all our points, but I must warn him that we are bound to force this Amendment to a Division, first, on the principle which we set out at the beginning of the debate, and, secondly, and equally important now, for the reason that we believe that, despite his very valiant efforts to help us, this whole system is so surrounded by confusion that we must register our protest in the Division Lobby.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 192, Noes 131.

Division No. 102.]
AYES
[8.1 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Fisher, Nigel
Lindsay, Sir Martin


Aitken, W. T.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Linstead, Sir Hugh


Allason, James
Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Litchfield, Capt. John


Arbuthnot, John
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Longbottom, Charles


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Gammans, Lady
Longden, Gilbert


Barlow, Sir John
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Loveys, Walter H.


Barter, John
Gilmour, Sir John
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Batsford, Brian
Glover, Sir Douglas
McAdden, Stephen


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
MacArthur, Ian


Bell, Ronald
Goodhart, Philip
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia


Biffen, John
Goodhew, Victor
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Bishop, F. P.
Gough, Frederick
McMaster, Stanley R.


Black, Sir Cyril
Grant, Rt. Hon. William
MacPherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Brume-Arton, A.
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.
Maddan, Martin


Box, Donald
Green, Alan
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Gresham Cooke, R.
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Braine, Bernard
Gurden, Harold
Marshall, Douglas


Brooman-White, R.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Marten, Neil


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Bryan, Paul
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mawby, Ray


Buck, Antony
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Bullard, Denys
Hay, John
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Bullus, Wing Commander Erie
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Mills, Stratton


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden)
Hiley, Joseph
Montgomery, Fergus


Channon, H. P. G.
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Morgan, William


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Morrison, John


Cleaver, Leonard
Holland, Philip
Nabarro, Gerald


Collard, Richard
Hopkins, Alan
Neave, Airey


Cooke, Robert
Hornby, R. P.
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard


Corfield, F. V.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Costain, A. P.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Coulson, Michael
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Hutchinson, Michael Clark
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Critchley, Julian
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Partridge, E.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Crowder, F. P.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Peet, John


Dalkeith, Earl of
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Percival, Ian


Deedes, W. F.
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


de Ferrantl, Basil
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Pitt, Miss Edith


Doughty, Charles
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Pott, Percivall


du Cann, Edward
Kershaw, Anthony
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Duncan, Sir James
Kimball, Marcus
Prior, J. M. L.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kirk, Peter
Pym, Francis


Elliott, R. W (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Kitson, Timothy
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Errington, Sir Eric
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Ramsden, James


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Leather, E. H. C.
Rawlinson, Peter


Fair, John
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin




Rees-Davies, W. R.
Talbot, John E.
Walder, David


Renton, David
Tapsell, Peter
Walker, Peter


Ridsdale, Julian
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Wall, Patrick


Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Ward, Dame Irene


Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Temple, John M.
Webster David


Russell, Ronald
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Sharples, Richard
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Whitelaw, William


Shaw, M.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Smithers Peter
Turner, Colin
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Woollam, John


Spearman, Sir Alexander
Tweedsmuir, Lady
Worsley, Marcus


Stanley, Hon. Richard
van Straubenzee, W. R.



Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Vane, W. M. F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Studholme, Sir Henry
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis
Mr. Gordon Campbell and


Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Mr. McLaren.




NOES


Ainsley, William
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Oram, A. E.


Albu, Austen
Hayman, F. H.
Owen, Will


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Padley, W. E.


Baird, John
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, w.)


Beaney, Alan
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Pargiter, G. A.


Bence, Cyril
Hilton, A. v.
Parker, John


Benson, Sir George
Houghton, Douglas
Paton, John


Blackburn, F.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Peart, Frederick


Boardman, H.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Prentice, R. E.


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Probert, Arthur


Bowles, Frank
Hunter, A. E.
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Boyden, James
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Randall, Harry


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Redhead, E. C.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Callaghan, James
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ross, William


Chapman, Donald
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)


Crosland, Anthony
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Short, Edward


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Kenyon, Clifford
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Key, Rt. Hon. c. W.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
King, Dr. Horace
Skeffington, Arthur


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lawson, George
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Deer, George
Ledger, Ron
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Dempsey, James
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Small, William


Diamond, John
Lipton, Marcus
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Dodds, Norman
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Sorensen, R. W.


Driberg, Tom
MacColl, James
Steele, Thomas


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
McInnes, James
Stonehouse, John


Edwards, Robert (Button)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Symonds, J. B.


Evans, Albert
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Fletcher, Eric
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Manuel, A. C.
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mapp, Charles
Thornton, Ernest


Forman, J. C.
Mason, Roy
Wainwright, Edwin


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mayhew, Christopher
Warbey, William


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mellish, R. J.
Weitzman, David


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
Mendelson, J. J.
Wilkins, W. A.


Gooch, E. G.
Millan, Bruce
Willey, Frederick


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Milne, Edward
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Mitchison, G. R.
Woof, Robert


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Monslow, Walter
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Moyle, Arthur



Hannan, William
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Cronin and Mr. Ifor Davies.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: I beg to move, in page 2, line 43, after "Ireland" to insert:
and that in respect of his abode he is the person described in a current voucher issued for the purposes of this section by or on behalf of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government certifying that such abode is available and fit for habitation".
During the Second Reading debate, the Minister of Labour said this:
… I do not think that it would be right for us to sit back and allow Commonwealth citizens to come into this country in vastly

increased numbers unless we are satisfied that reasonable living conditions are available for them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 16th November. 1961; Vol. 649, c. 807.]
On 6th December, the Home Secretary said that one of the reasons for the introduction of the Bill was "the grim housing conditions", and he went on to say that we wanted
to balance the inflow with the sincere efforts we are making to improve housing conditions.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December, 1961; Vol. 650, c. 1432.]


The object of this Amendment is to elicit from the Government exactly what the Minister of Labour and the Home Secretary meant in making those statements.
On a previous Amendment, the Minister of Labour said that in determining the rate of issue of labour vouchers the housing situation, among other factors, will be taken into account. I wish to know how the housing situation will be taken into account and what positive action the Government have in mind, not only in preventing the housing situation from becoming worse, but in ensuring that the immigrants with labour vouchers will be guaranteed not only a job, but a decent roof over their heads.
The problem concerning immigration is housing. Housing difficulties represent well over 90 per cent. of the problem with which the Government are trying to deal in the Bill. But unless the Government have some regard to housing immigrants as well as to guaranteeing them jobs when they get here, the situation is likely to get worse. The problem stems from the Government's reluctance to tackle the organising of industry and employment and coordinating the provision of jobs with the provision of homes.
It is not sufficient to provide a person coming here with a job unless he has a reasonable prospect of being housed. We who represent London constituencies know the difficulties only too well. Immigrants in London cannot possibly qualify to be housed by local authorities in the area—possibly this applies to the provincial areas as well—for many years, because already there are 80,000 people on the L.C.C. housing list. Therefore, this is not a problem with which local authorities can possibly cope.
8.15 p.m.
As I have said, the purpose of the Amendment is to find out what the Government propose to do about the housing problem and how the housing situation will be taken into account in deciding how many labour vouchers and other vouchers should be issued. It is not as though the Government were not made aware of this problem many years ago. I remember suggesting to the then Colonial Secretary in 1954 that he should call a conference of local authorities concerned with this matter to discuss

what could best be done to cope with the problem and the difficulties created by immigration into one or two special areas. The Government did nothing about it because the problem affected only a number of areas in which there was either a Labour council in control or a Labour Member of Parliament.
It was not, therefore, a problem in which the Government of 1954 were interested. It was only when more vociferous cries went up from areas in which there was either a Conservative local authority or where the area was represented by a Conservative Member of Parliament that the Government decided that something should be clone about the matter and proceeded to introduce this unfortunate Bill.
A suggestion which I put forward in October, 1954, was turned down. My local authority, the Lambeth Borough Council, sent a deputation to the Colonial Office in January, 1955, which suggested that immigrants should be dispersed to places where the housing problem was not as great as it was in London and where jobs were available. Our suggestion was turned down. No notice was taken of it.
The grievance which we expressed then remains our grievance now. It is this. The question of the entry of immigrants to this country and their dispersal to areas where they can be absorbed is one for solution at national level and should not be left, as it has been left for the past seven years, to the inadequate resources of the few areas affected by a concentration of immigrants. The Government feel that they have a responsibility for ensuring that jobs are available for immigrants, but I should like to know their attitude to housing the people who will continue to come here under the Bill.
That is our object in putting forward the Amendment. It is vitally important that we should know what the Government have in mind. In London, and possibly in other provincial centres, there has been, as a result of the Rent Act, gross over-valuation of derelict or semislum properties which immigrants are having to buy because there is no other way of providing themselves with accommodation. Some white estate agents and property owners are making a good thing


out of specialising—and many of them are specialising in this traffic—in the sale to immigrants of short-lease property and dilapidated property which immediately becomes overcrowded because the purchaser of it, naturally, wishes to get his money back as quickly as possible and to pay off the mortgage.
It would have been better if we could encourage the immigration of employers into the less crowded areas of this country where the housing of the additional labour required would not constitute such a great problem. But in deciding the allocation of labour vouchers, I should like to know whether the Government, in considering to what extent the housing situation must be taken into account, will give preference, for example, to a firm in an area where the housing situation is not acute and where jobs are available.
Those are some of the questions about which we should like to know a little more, and that is why the Amendment has been tabled. I will not try to deploy all the arguments and considerations that come into this difficult problem because I promised to be brief, and I hope that other hon. Members who take part in the discussion will follow my example. Nevertheless, we expect a specific reply, and specific undertakings from the Government in relation to what is the core of the problem, namely, the housing of immigrants.

Mr. Norman Pannell: I agree with the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) that the housing problem is the greatest one that we have to deal with in relation to immigration. I recognise the difficulties of amending the Bill to provide housing accommodation in the manner suggested by the hon. Gentleman, but the purpose of my rising is to emphasise one aspect of this matter which I think should be put on record.
When the Conservative Government came into office in 1951 they were committed to a house-building programme of 300,000 houses a year. I assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that I have no desire to make a party point, or to compare this record with that of the Socialist Government from 1945 to 1951. But the fact remains, and it is fully recognised.

that house building between 1929 and 1951 was inadequate, partly because of the war, and partly because of the aftermath of war.
When that programme was fixed by the Conservative Government they had in mind an increase in population—I am talking only of England and Wales—of roughly 150,000 a year. This figure was confirmed in the succeeding years, and my authority for this is the Report of the Ministry of Health for 1960, which has recently been published. In 1952, the increase in population in England and Wales was 140,000. It varied slightly from then on, until in 1955 it amounted to 167,000.
A dramatic change occurred from 1955 onwards. This was because up to 1955 there had been net emigration from this country, but from that date the situation was reversed and more people entered the country than left it. The increase in population was due not only to that, but because the birth rate increased by more than had been anticipated, so that in 1956, instead of the average increase of 150,000, on which the housing programme had been based, the figure rose to 226,000. These figures are taken to June of each year. In the period ended June, 1960, the increase for the year amounted to 369,000, and the Report of the Ministry of Health shows that that figure included 108,000 due to the net figure of immigration over emigration.
Due partly to an increase in the birth rate, but chiefly to an increase in immigration over emigration, the population, in the last five years, instead of rising by the expected 150,000 per year, rose by well over 300,000 a year. It is obvious that if a policy has been devised to cater for a population rise of 150,000 a year it must be thrown out of gear if the population rises by 369,000 a year.
That postulates a need for houses for an extra 200,000 people a year, or 70,000 houses. That is not related in this case to the figure of 300,000 houses a year, because the figures that I have given are for England and Wales, and the building programme for England and Wales was roughly 250,000 houses a year. If, by virtue of immigration, there is a need to step up the housing programme by 70,000 houses a year and


this is not done, obviously there will be great difficulty in housing people.

Mr. James MacColl: The hon. Gentleman said that the increase was not due entirely to immigration. If he then says that the net increase is due to immigration, he is making his argument illogical, apart from distorting the facts.

Mr. Pannell: I am willing to amend to this extent. The figure for the excess of births over deaths, the natural increase, was estimated to be 180,000 in 1951. In the meantime, it has risen to 250,000. I concede that the excess of 70,000 is due to an increase in the birth rate, but I am not talking about this increase. I am talking about an increase of over 200,000 compared with the figure ten years ago, and since the figures that I have given are those up to June, 1960, and immigration has been at a higher level since then, reaching a peak of 136,000 in 1961 compared with only 58,000 in 1960, it is clear that the situation has further deteriorated.
As the hon. Member for Brixton said, the deterioration is most pronounced in our great cities where these immigrants congregate. It is useless to say that the Housing Act of 1961 solves this problem by giving local authorities power to deal with these multi-occupied houses. If local authorities intervene, they must cause a reduction in the number of people housed, and no local authority will evict people without providing alternative accommodation. The result is that those who have been on the housing list for years—and in Liverpool there are now 43,000 families on the housing list—naturally show great resentment if new houses provided by the local authority are allocated to immigrants who have been in the area for only a few years.
I do not want to say any more than that. It pinpoints one facet of this problem, and although I support the argument of the hon. Member for Brixton, I am prepared to wait for the answer of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary before I decide whether I can support the hon. Gentleman in the Lobby.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. A. Evans: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell) seemed to be telling the House that the Government's housing programme had

got out of gear because of certain factors. The Government have been in office for ten years, and if their housing programme has got out of gear I suggest that it is about time they revised it to meet the present need.

The Amendment is designed to press the Government to face their responsibility for housing those who share our common citizenship and come here from other parts of the Commonwealth. In effect, it tells the Government, "You are responsible, and you cannot evade your responsibility for housing these people." Only the Government have the power to tackle this problem.

During the last half hour the Minister of Labour has told us of the elaborate arrangements made for a voucher system to permit members of the Commonwealth to stay here. From what he said it is evident that we need these people to do vital jobs. We cannot run our hospitals without them; we cannot build houses without them, or run our railways. We need this flow of people from the Commonwealth and we are glad to have them here. But if we bring them here to do these essential and often menial tasks we must see that they are adequately housed.

The Home Secretary cannot shrug off this side of the problem and confine himself to the movement of immigrants, indicating that housing is not his concern. The Bill is his, and he must know that as the flow of people from the Commonwealth continues it is essential for the Government to see that they are adequately housed. Hon. Members on this side of the House have some basic objections to the Bill, which I shall not mention here because it would not be in order for me to do so. I shall not elaborate our fundamental objection to the Bill, which is that it discriminates on grounds of colour.

Leaving aside that fundamental consideration, it is clear that the Bill seeks to control the movement into this country of those from the Commonwealth, and its basic defect is that it fails to tackle the problem of housing these people. It is pathetic to see these people arriving at our railway stations, carrying their bags and limping round begging to be taken into this house or that. I raised this matter four years ago, but the Government, with all their power,


have done nothing about it. If something had been done then the Bill would not be necessary now.

It is the friction caused by overcrowding and bad housing that has forced many people to demand that some control should be placed upon immigration. We know that these folk concentrate in certain places. London has 40 per cent. of the inflow, and some parts of London have an even greater concentration. This has meant the creation of racial friction between people who have been established here for years and the newcomers. In street after street in my constituency there is bad feeling, racial friction, and hard words. That is the first thing that we must attend to. If we bring about racial friction by allowing these people to enter the country without providing for their housing, we are doing a bad thing; we are striking at the very basis of our multiracial Commonwealth. It is because the Government have neglected the appalling housing conditions in our urban centres that this friction has arisen between people of different colour.

The bad housing situation is magnified in the minds of these people when they see a person of a different colour being suitably housed while they cannot find satisfactory accommodation. The Government must take steps to allay the racial friction which arises from inadequate and bad housing. The Home Secretary knows that in recent years arrangements have existed between overseas countries and this country regarding housing facilities. At one time there was an arrangement with Cyprus to enable some attempt to be made to keep a check on the housing facilities available for people coming from Cyprus.

I do not know whether the same thing applied in relation to Malta and Pakistan. The arrangements which did exist enabled us to provide to some extent for newcomers and to ensure that they were given adequate shelter. Have these arrangements collapsed? Are the Government maintaining or improving them? Are the Government doing nothing at all? Are the Government taking no action to deal with the danger of the friction arising from inadequate

housing facilities in great centres of population in this country? I think that those are fair questions which it is necessary to answer.

The Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us about the schemes which were operated and which may still operate. If the Government cannot accept the Amendment, at least the House should be told that the situation will be examined to see what better arrangements may be made with overseas countries and the appropriate Government Departments in order that something may be done to lessen the tension to which I have referred.

Dr. Alan Glyn: The House should be grateful to the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) for bringing this subject to the notice of hon. Members. There are many who agree that the fundamental problem regarding immigration is not one of colour, but of housing. I do not propose to follow the general argument on the shortage of housing except to say that I do not consider that this provision is practical. In the face of the present housing shortage it would tend to eliminate immigration almost entirely. The necessary certificates could not be issued because of the lack of housing in the great cities. We all know that the only answer to the housing problem there is to increase the density figure and provide more houses.
The hon. Member for Brixton represents the neighbouring constituency to mine and we share this problem. A great deal of friction arises through shortage of housing accommodation. When people come from overseas there arises a feeling of jealousy among the original inhabitants of an area, because it is thought that the newcomers are taking accommodation for which they have waited for a number of years.
Many estate agents take advantage of the fact that people from overseas are prepared to purchase short-leases. They know that the liabilities which will arise at the conclusion of the lease will not be undertaken by these people, and that they can easily be moved out. Very considerable overcrowding is caused in some areas. It is no use looking to the local councils to provide more housing accommodation, because to do so would merely increase the housing shortage somewhere else.
Possibly one of the answers to this problem, apart from the general housing situation, is for the Minister to make sure that when the immigrants come he will operate some form of dispersal so that they are not directed to areas where already there is a housing shortage. I know that is difficult because most of the jobs are in big cities, but it is a point worthy of consideration and I hope he will have something to say on it. By means of dispersal I think that we could reduce the heat of racial tension in the main cities.

Mr. Herbert Butler: I start the short speech I wish to make by saying immediately that I do not believe in any restrictions on members of the Commonwealth coming to this country, but the Government who have introduced this Bill have to face some of its implications. We have been told for many years since the Government have been in power that they have dealt with the housing situation of this country. Eventually they have agreed that there are pockets in some places where there are difficulties.
What we have to put to the Government and to the Minister who is to reply to this debate is that many local authorities are facing racial difficulties because of the shortage of houses. In my constituency a welfare officer was appointed, a very intelligent gentleman, a coloured man, who had served in south London. He was appointed in an attempt to smooth the way and to eradicate some of the difficulties, but, as has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) and others, the main difficulty which arises is that coloured families particularly, because they are more distinguishable, and Irishmen as well, are taking large houses with short-leases, buying them from unscrupulous estate agents and landlords who are prepared to exact the highest prices they possibly can.
So far as I am concerned, private landlords are an anachronism. We do not want them; there should be no private landlords. They are taking advantage of this situation. When these people move in those who have lived in those areas for many years are aggrieved because those from overseas are moving in while they themselves live in terrible conditions. Those who have lived in the

areas for many years are not necessarily aware that those moving into these old houses are also living in bad conditions.
If the Government make provision for people to come to this country and impose conditions that they must have vouchers and must have a job to come to, surely there is a responsibility on the Government to ensure that those people have somewhere to lay their heads when they have finished doing essential work in the hospitals, on the buses, or in the difficult tasks which face those who have to recruit labour in places such as London.
It might be thought that we are trying to impose further restrictions on the entry of colonial people to this country, but that it not so at all. The purpose of the Amendment is to place at the doors of the Government responsibility for ensuring reasonably decent conditions for people who contribute to the social development of the country. It is no good saying that local authorities should bear this responsibility. I have a problem in my area similar to that of many other areas represented by hon. Members. We have a waiting list of 6,000 after all these years of Conservative inactivity. Those people are still waiting. We cannot absorb the people who will come into these areas. We say to the Government, "Surely if you are taking steps to ensure that the people coming into the country have employment, you should devise some scheme whereby you ensure that their families have a roof over their heads. Surely that is elementary."
What is happening under the Bill is that private landlords have found a further market in which they can get high prices for their property in the towns. We and the Government must take cognisance of the new situation which has arisen as a consequence of the influx of colonial immigrants. My hon. Friend the Member for Brixton is naturally concerned, as he has been over a number of years, about the spectacle of people who come into this country and who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans) said, stand at railway stations on arrival with nowhere to go. Eventually they find a place. We want the Government to tell us what they intend


to do when they let these people come into the country.

8.45 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke): This is one of the most realistic debates we have had on the Bill, and we should be grateful to the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) for having initiated it. The hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. H. Butler) said that this Amendment must not be taken as adding further restrictions, but of course it does. If we read it in its plain meaning in English, it says that an immigrant must not only have a labour voucher but also
that in respect to his abode he is the person described in a current
accommodation voucher. In other words, he must have not only a labour voucher but an accommodation voucher before he can come into the country—two restrictions instead of one. I see the motive behind the Amendment very clearly.
On Second Reading my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that we had examined the point very carefully but that the consequences of making restrictions of this sort would be unbelievably and unsupportably dictatorial. What would accommodation certificates of this kind mean? My right hon. Friend said,
We do not think that such a control could be operated without intolerable supervision and regimentation. To follow an immigrant moving from place to place in this country would be almost impossible. Also, this would be a power in excess of what we use in dealing with aliens."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1961; Vol. 648, c. 695.]
There is, of course, grave objection in principle to the control of movement within this country through a sort of domiciliary control to see that somebody stays in a certain place or in a certain dwelling.

Mr. H. Butler: Nobody is suggesting that.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: It follows inevitably that if we have an accommodation certificate and a system by which someone can enter the country only if he has a bed in which to sleep at a certain place, he must be compelled to stay there

for at least one night, otherwise the whole control becomes a farce.

Mr. Lipton: In connection with the labour vouchers, the Minister is not insisting that the man who takes the job in question shall stay in it for the rest of his life, nor do we insist in respect of the housing certificate that he should stay in the house for the rest of his natural life.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: If a man has a job he will almost certainly stay in it for a reasonable time. The majority of people stay in their jobs for a reasonable length of time, and I think that nobody would suggest that Commonwealth immigrants change their jobs immediately they arrive. They accept the responsibility of the job for a reasonable time in the same way as does anyone else. For that reason I think that the two things are not parallel, because if all that is required is a bed for one night, then it is clear that the control would be a farce. Moreover, it would require a great deal of policing, which would be an infringement of our liberty.
I was asked about the Cyprus housing and immigration schemes. I am told that they broke down because almost immediately the addresses were provided to the Cyprus authorities—who would issue passports only if there was an address to go to—those addresses were found to be not "houses of pass", a phrase which I understand has a technical meaning, but mere accommodation addresses. The system broke down almost at once. It is for reasons such as this that one cannot adopt a system of control based on a person's residence. Once we start to do that we shall find ourselves in deep water.

Mr. Ellis Smith: What is the alternative?

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: The alternative is a control of immigration at the ports in the way we have adopted.
It seems to be the general desire of hon. Members that we should disperse immigrants, and both my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Brixton asked what we intended to do about this. The answer is that one cannot disperse them forcibly. All one can do once the immigrants are here


is to treat them as one would treat ordinary citizens and rely on such methods as are available, such as the Local Employment Act, the general planning provisions and all the other means one uses to try to disperse industry generally.
The idea that the Government could take measures internally, other than those of persuasion, to disperse immigrants to various parts of the country to which they do not wish to go is, I suggest, quite impossible when analysed.

Mr. H. Butler: Will the immigrants not be dispersed by the labour vouchers?

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: It has already been pointed out that anyone who can show that he has a job to come to can have a labour voucher, but I would certainly not wish to say that these vouchers will provide a good means of dispersal. As I say, anyone is entitled to a labour voucher if he can show that he has a job to come to, but I should not like to mislead hon. Members by saying that one could rely on the voucher system for the purpose of dispersing immigrants.
Once it is admitted that this is an immigration control, we must rely—and I think the hon. Member for Brixton showed some assent to this—on the general provisions which apply to ourselves as well as to those who come in from outside for the dispersal of industry. There is no special means, other than that of persuasion and welfare, which we can rely upon to treat these people separately from anyone else once they are in this country.
I would remind the House that my right hon. Friend has taken the opportunity of the Bill, as he announced on a previous occasion, to set up a Welfare Advisory Council which will advise him particularly on questions of housing and accommodation. There still are, I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans), several excellent voluntary bodies doing this work—several immigrants housing associations—but nevertheless a real problem remains.
We are conscious that immigrants like to congregate in certain not very numerous but very concentrated areas, and that is why the names on the Notice Paper appear to this Amendment. They

go to certain areas—the capital City, Birmingham, the Midlands and, to a lesser extent, Lancashire.

Mr. H. Butler: That is where the jobs are.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: The jobs are not only in those areas but in other places as well. Yet, for obvious social reasons, because they may feel strangers in a strange land, they prefer to congregate where those who have come before them have gone. We cannot forcibly prevent that. All we can do is to see that the total numbers coming in are manageable, rely on the various welfare organisations we hope to see developed and at the same time try to persuade them that by congregating in the way they do they create—as the hon. Member for Islington, South-West said—the sort of racial frictions which it is the objectives of all hon. Members to avoid and which, I believe, the Bill will do something to avoid in the future.

Mr. Julius Silverman: We are dismayed at the hon. and learned Gentleman's reply. It has been admitted on both sides of the House that the main problem of immigration is, in essence, a housing problem. Hon. Members on both sides have said that that is the main cause of the uneasiness and hostility which exists in certain areas. There is no substantial difficulty about employment. There may just now be a slight increase in unemployment among coloured immigrants, but, taken as a whole, this is not an employment problem. Moreover, it is not fundamentally an immigration problem. Immigration has simply aggravated difficulties which already exist.
Today, particularly in certain areas, there are more jobs than there are houses. This is the result of Government policy and industrial and labour planning. When we ask what they intend to do about it, we are told nothing. The Government propose to rely on certain voluntary organisations. The Home Secretary will have an advisory committee to give him advice about the housing of immigrants. What sort of advice? We already know what the situation is. We are aware of most of the facts. It is not a matter of advice. The question to be answered is what do the Government propose to do not


merely for immigrants, but also for the citizens of the country as a whole? What remedy for the disparity do they propose?
I do not deny that the Amendment as drafted presents difficulties of application, but the hon. and learned Gentleman's reply exposed the fraudulent attitude of the Government behind the Bill. What they suggest will not deal with the problem at all. It is no more than a piece of glorified eye-wash. The Bill may make it more difficult for some immigrants to come in or contact an employer, but if the jobs are there people will come as they do now, and if the jobs are not there they will not come.
One hon. Member opposite spoke about the increase in house building since 1951. What he did not say was that one of the reasons for the increase is the increased labour force, and a very large part of that greater labour force is composed of immigrant labour, including, in the first place, immigrant labour from Ireland. Let us not forget that. It is calculated that in some areas 50 per cent. to 80 per cent. of the labour employed in house building, in building generally and in civil engineering is immigrant labour of one sort or another.
So we have this dilemma. We want the people in to do the jobs. We want them in to build the houses. But we are not prepared to make any provision so that houses will be there for them. The disparity still exists. We are completely dissatisfied with what the Minister has told us about the Government's intentions.
There have been references to the last Housing Act. Under that Act, insufficient powers have been given to local authorities in areas which are overcrowded and subject, as my own constituency in Birmingham is, to the rackets which have already been mentioned to deal with the problems which are created because the rights of the landlord are considered far more important than the rights of either the immigrants or, for that matter, the people of Birmingham or any other place which suffers in the same way.
I believe that one way to relieve the problem of gross overcrowding is municipal ownership of houses in the twilight areas. Where that has been done in

Birmingham it has been an effective method of dealing with the problem. But when we ask for rights—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is going very wide of the Amendment now, even by way of illustration.

Mr.Silverman: It may not be directly on the Amendment itself, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but it is connected with the powers sought by the Amendment. However, I shall not pursue the matter.
The necessary rights and powers were denied by the Government. Now, the Government and some hon. Members opposite are trying to make political capital out of what is happening, in some cases stirring up hatred by exploiting a situation for which they, to a large extent, are themselves responsible through the Rent Act and the inadequate powers which have been given to local authorities.
The Government have promised nothing. They have shown no desire to deal with the housing problem, and we are very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) for raising the matter and exposing to the House the bankruptcy of the Government's policy in regard to the Bill

Amendment negatived.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, in page 2, line 48, to leave out "a substantial".

This Amendment was discussed in Committee and normally one might have felt that it was inappropriate to take up time in discussing it again, when we are so rushed for time. Since the discussion in Committee there has been considerably more information available to the House as to what paragraph (b) means and how it is to be interpreted, because we now have the passage in the draft instructions to immigration officers, which deals with students.

Quite an amount of space is taken up in the draft instructions in pointing out to the immigration officers that it is intended to allow free entry to people who are coming here for the purpose of attending courses of study. It goes on to discuss the possibility that someone may pretend that he is coming here for that purpose when, in fact, he is merely trying to get employment without having a labour voucher. That may be true. If it


is true, such a person is not eligible to be admitted under this subsection.

The subsection deals only with people who are coming here for the purpose of attending a course of study. My complaint is that, having established that principle, the question of whether or not immigrants are coming here for whole-time or part-time study is not relevant. The important question is whether they are genuinely coming here for the purpose of study at a university, college, school or other institution. Apparently, a correspondence course is not in itself a course of study. The interesting part comes when one looks at what is meant by the word "substantial". What gloss is put on the word "substantial" in the draft instructions?

Paragraph 12 states:
The time that a student should be required to devote to his studies cannot be precisely defined. For example, those taking a degree or post-graduate courses may spend little time in attendance at lectures, and much time in individual study".

It is a very interesting little sentence. I think that it shows that the Home Secretary's conscience began to prick him. I very much doubt whether the right hon. Gentleman spent much time attending courses of study. He was much too able and academic to worry himself with that kind of thing.

Sir Kenneth Pickthorn: Not at all. It is quite untrue. I know all about it. He got all the instruction that he could get.

Mr. MacColl: That may be so, but I am sure that when the right hon. Gentleman addressed his superiors he stood on his feet, unlike the hon. Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn).
I suspect that this is a piece of intellectual snobbery. Why should it be the established and accepted view that to take a degree at a university means that one studies on one's own, but that if one is working for a Higher National Certificate at a polytechnic or technical college, and doing much of the work with one's hands, or studying at home, or in a public library, or anywhere where one can find somewhere to study, going only to the colleges for specific courses, one may find difficulty about establishing that one is spending a substantial amount of time attending courses?

The regulations go on:
In general, it may be taken as a working rule that a student is to be regarded as devoting 'a substantial part' of his time to his studies if he spends at least 15 hours a week in the prescribed study of a single subject or related subjects.
From where does this figure of 15 hours come? It was first used in Committee and is now embodied in this sacred text. It is a very large amount of time.
Assuming a course of study for five days a week, that is three hours a day and I suspect that that is more than many people who have had an expensive education have spent in study of a subject. I very much doubt whether I spent as much as 15 hours a week with two tutorials and one lecture a day. I suspect that there are many people who study for degrees who do not spend anything like 15 hours a week on the course. Why should the figure of 15 hours be enshrined in the instructions?
Has the right hon. Gentleman consulted the polytechnics and technical college about the normal amount of time spent in study in the colleges? There must be many people studying at polytechnics for important qualifications who study for 10 hours or less and do not reach the 15 hours. The regulations add:
The fact that a student wishes to engage in paid part-time or vacational employment in order to finance his studies is not a bar to his admission as a student.
I welcome that.
I should also mention that the instructions say that many people may be allowed over here by means of an entry certificate. I do not know whether I can raise questions about the entry certificate, which is mentioned in the instructions but not in the Bill. I had an Amendment on the Notice Paper in Committee dealing with this matter and although these proposals do not go as far as my suggestion, in the circumstances I do not wish to move the Amendment which I have tabled, for to do so would be to waste time.
Some people have been somewhat fearful about the idea of an entry certificate on the ground that the light of criticism would not shine as brightly on what happens in the countries of residence as it would on refusals made here. It is believed that there is a danger of the countries concerned having stricter


interpretations of qualifications than would happen if everything were done here, with hon. Members knowing what was going on.
If an entry certificate is issued, will it be issued to people who show that they hope to obtain university entrance or a higher certificate, to obtain a job which will enable them to do a sandwich course as part of their technical studies or to keep themselves by working to some extent while hoping to obtain a grant somewhere? Will information be given about all these complicated variations to people who issue the entry certificates?
I profoundly pity the immigration officers. It is extraordinarily difficult to see how an immigration officer can steer his way through all the educational niceties about the different types of course, the different facilities available in different parts of the country, the kind of qualifications which people will need within the Commonwealth and so on. In Committee, I suggested the setting up of an educational advisory committee to act as a focus for information of this sort. The Home Secretary was not keen on the idea and said that he would rely on the British Council. The British Council is an admirable body in dealing with a specialist problem, but it does not deal with the wide scatter of students who come to this country.
The fact that the right hon. Gentleman said that he would rely on the British Council frightened me. It made me think that he would take a rather conventional view of the kind of way in which people become students. We must recognise that this country is the educational centre of the Commonwealth and that all who have the drive and energy to study and get qualifications should be allowed to "chance their arm" and have a try.
I know that tragedies occur, and that some people have a sense of failure, but none of us would suggest that somebody who might be told that he was not qualified should not be allowed to have a try and show that he can do it rather than accept somebody else's judgment. It is a characteristic reaction of anybody who is young to want to come and try, even if it is suggested that he is not up to it. People would feel frustrated if they wanted to come here to obtain qualifications with which they could

serve their country but were prevented from coming by the rather narrow, conventional outlook of immigration officers and respectable people of that sort. I hope that the Home Secretary can assure us that the regulations will be interpreted liberally and humanely.

Mr. Chapman: My hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) has moved the Amendment so well and so comprehensively that we can all be brief. I want, however, to ask a question about paragraph 13 of the draft instructions to immigration officers. Am I right in interpreting it to mean that an immigration officer will have a good deal of discretion in allowing entry to students who might not do as much as 15 hours a week? Paragraph 13 states that it may not be
possible to establish the precise number of hours
and that a student should be admitted if the immigration officer is satisfied that his principal object is study. If the Home Secretary will assure us that the business of the 15 hours will not be rigidly interpreted, but will be subject to broad interpretation in paragraph 13, I shall feel much happier.
There are about 30,000 Commonwealth students in this country. The figures can be variously interpreted, but they are of that order. No difficulty arises in ensuring that most of them will be readily admitted under the Bill. Six thousand at universities will easily get in. Two thousand seven hundred at Inns of Court will easily get in. Teacher training is easily identified and another 5,600 in nursing will be easily identified. Practical training of various kinds with private firms would be readily identified as a course of study and private colleges, accounting for another 2,600, can be easily assessed at the ports. But the one that really worries me, and it is such a large figure, is the 7,000 or 8,000 out of the total of 30,000 which is the number of those who go to technical colleges when they arrive here.
9.15 p.m.
It worries me more when one breaks down this total of 7,000 or 8,000 to find out what it is they come here to study. It is roughly of this order of magnitude—that about 2,000 come to study for the G.C.E., 600 to study architecture and building, and 2,000 to study engineering.


The thing that stands out immediately in these three categories is the number who will probably be studying on a part-time basis in the evenings, particularly building and for the G.C.E., after their day's work.
This is further borne out if one examines, for example, the number of Commonwealth students who go to specific technical colleges in the London area. One has only to examine the geographical concentration to realise the large number of part-time evening students who will be studying almost as an addition to their work rather than coming here primarily, and, above all, to study.
This is the borderline where I am worried about the interpretation of the instructions. I ask the Home Secretary most categorically to give us an assurance about that kind of student who is here on a fifty-fifty basis both of work and study and may not be doing 15 hours' study a week. I am worried about those students because they already constitute such a large proportion of the Commonwealth students in the country. I hope that the Home Secretary will see to it that paragraph 13 of the instructions is liberally interpreted to ensure that these people can continue to come into the country.

Mr. Fletcher: I wish to support the Amendment, and I hope that the Home Secretary will bear in mind what has been said. Some congratulatory remarks have been made about certain aspects of the White Paper containing the draft instructions, but I feel that this section dealing with students is open to serious objections. It has emerged from our debates that of all the classes of immigrants who will suffer from the Bill it is the technical students who come from the Commonwealth for part-time education who are likely to be penalised the most.

The Amendment has been tabled primarily to delete the word "substantial" from the text of the Bill, but also, as my hon. Friends have indicated, to enable paragraphs in the White Paper to be modified. I hope that the Home Secretary will accept the Amendment and also that he will revise this section of the White Paper. Surely it is a shortsighted policy to place any handicap in the way not only of these young persons

who come here from the Commonwealth principally for the purpose of study but also in the way of those who come here partly for the purpose of study. The most serious offence in paragraph 13 is the requirement that the immigrant must satisfy the immigration officer that his principal object in coming to the United Kingdom is to study. It will be very difficult for a great many genuine, deserving part-time students to satisfy that requirement, because experience shows that they come here partly to study and partly to earn their living.

If, therefore, this instruction is to be interpreted strictly by the immigration officers these young people will not be able to say that they come here principally to study. In this connection, I remind the Home Secretary of the present position. Some figures have been given and I have also ascertained some. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise, for example, that none of the 1,000 Commonwealth students at the Kennington College of Commerce enrolled for courses before they reached this country and that very few have jobs of the sort that can be arranged in advance or sufficient private means to live on?

There are those who immigrate primarily to work in order to earn their living but also with a view to attending evening courses if they can. If they cannot do that, then very often they have to take correspondence courses. I do not think that it is necessary for the Home Secretary to exclude correspondence courses as a course of study, as is suggested in the instructions. Not only Commonwealth students but quite a number of British people have benefited very sensibly from correspondence courses.

The genuine student very often has to put up with a correspondence course, and very often does very well, whether he comes from the Commonwealth or not. Surely there is no need to be so doctrinaire as to exclude correspondence courses as a serious piece of student work. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) has said, 15 hours a week is a great deal to expect even of some full-time students, let alone those who also have to earn their living.

A great number of these people render considerable technical service to this country after attending these courses of


study. Some arrive here as unskilled workers but, as a result of education, become skilled. This is the class of person who should be given every possible encouragement. In this respect, the Home Secretary's instructions are less humane, less liberal and less sensible than anywhere else, and we hope that the Amendment will be accepted.

Mr. R. A. Butler: We discussed this matter at the end of one day in Committee, but I think it reasonable that it should be raised again in the way in which it has been raised by hon. Members. The figures given by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) are quite correct. I have the total figures here. The total numbers come to 35,729, which, to use his words—which are not pure English—are broken down in the way he described as between universities, technical colleges, the inns of court, teacher training colleges and the nursing profession. In nursing there are 7,991, in practical training some 5,000 and in technical colleges some 7,946. That gives a clear idea to the House of what the problem is.
We always intended that students should be well treated in coming to this country, and I must say that, although I have studied the previous speech of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) about the Kennington Commercial College, as it interested me very much, I do not accept his generalisation that students will suffer most. I think it will be found that, as a result of the instructions we are giving immigration officers, students will be able to come here as freely as they have before, and that, taking the various schemes together, which I will now shortly describe to the House so that we make progress on other matters, students will not suffer but are going to be encouraged to come here.
We want to welcome students from the Commonwealth. We always had a scheme like this in mind. In response to representations in Committee we drafted the Amendment which now forms Clause 2 (3, b) in order to write into the Statute the desire to bring in students. As I said in Committee, it is almost impossible to draft the word "student in legal form. That is why we published the in-

structions to the immigration officers and why the two must be read together.
That is why also I would like to appeal to the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) not to press the Amendment, because I do not accept the belief that omitting this word will make any difference. I think personally that we should leave the Statute as drafted, interpret the instructions liberally and keep the House informed as to our progress in our policy towards students. While I am very glad to have this tag upon which to hang a speech, I do not believe that the word makes very much difference to the policy which we propose to carry out.
Hon. Members will see from paragraphs 9 and 10 of the White Paper which we have just published that there should be no trouble over the admission of those who come for any sort of full-time study. We have also arranged that anyone could be allowed to come here as a genuine student proposing to do 15 hours work a week in study.

Mrs. Harriet Slater: May I put this point to the right hon. Gentleman? Many of these people who come over here are anxious to qualify because provision is not available to them in their own country. They have to go out to work very largely because they can neither get a grant from us nor from their home country. I have a case at the moment in which a boy wants to qualify to enter the building trade, but he can neither get a grant from Nigeria nor can the get one here, so that he has to go to work.

Mr. Butler: The question of grants is not covered by this Bill, which simply relates to entry, but this question of grants fits into something else which I wanted to say. If a student obtains a voucher, which I am sure he would be able to get from any firm with which he wanted to be apprenticed, he would be able to earn his living that way and indulge in a student's life of study, to which the hon. Member for Islington, East referred. I think he would be covered in that way.
The hon. Member for Widnes, from his wide academic experience, not so fully supported by the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn), referred to the weakness of the 15-hour


a week provision in the Bill. I should like to say in answer to my hon. Friend on this side of the House that he was my tutor at Cambridge and that it is quite legitimate that he should make remarks about myself as a pupil. I fully accept this, as I had to accept it when sitting under him at Cambridge. It is nothing new, and I am quite used to it. That is why I am now where I am.
The hon. Member for Widnes referred to the provision of fifteen hours as being an artificial limit. When I mentioned it in Committee, I saw a few shrugs. As I promised to take account of what was said in Committee, we drafted this instruction in much more reasonable terms, I hope, by saying:
It may well not be possible to establish precisely how many hours work a student will devote to his studies; and the student should be admitted (even though it is not possible to establish the precise number of hours) if the Immigration Officer is satisfied that his principal object in coming to the United Kingdom is to study, and not to obtain employment for which he would otherwise need a Ministry of Labour voucher.
The discretion has to be undertaken and decided by the immigration officer that a student can be allowed to come in when study is the preponderating feature. On the other hand, if he comes in for work he must apply for a voucher.
The hon. Member for Widnes referred to the entry certificate, and I should like to answer him on that point. The entry certificate procedure will be open to all groups of people who want to avail themselves of it, but we attach particular importance to the entry certificate procedure for students. All that a student will have to do is to get in touch with one of our posts abroad and there obtain an entry certificate. A genuine student can then count on being admitted by the immigration officer, even though he has not yet arranged a definite course of study. Those responsible for issuing his entry certificate will, I assure the House, apply the same tests as are indicated in the White Paper.
We propose to circulate these tests for the guidance of those who are choosing the students. They will wish to be satisfied that the individual proposes to attend a course of study, as we have defined it, and the White Paper indicates that our posts abroad will keep in close touch with overseas authorities, and by

the word "authorities" it is meant overseas colleges, technical colleges perhaps, universities or other centres of learning or instruction, so that a genuine student can be more easily identified.
We have been in touch with some Governments—I will not mention them by name—who are not keen that it should be a Government matter. We agree, but as we wish to see students encouraged, we think we should be in touch with the authorities looking after them and know whether or not they are genuine students, when an entry certificate is applied for. I am sure that satisfactory arrangements can be made and worked out with the authorities in the Commonwealth.
9.30 p.m.
The one reservation which I must make in relation to technical colleges is in paragraph 14 of the White Paper, which states:
Paragraph 9… does not apply to persons coming as apprentices or as trainees in factories or other commercial undertakings. Normally these persons will be expected to have obtained Ministry of Labour vouchers. But some will come to this country under officially sponsored schemes"—
this is the answer to the point of the hon. Member for Widnes about sandwich courses—
and they should be admitted on documentary evidence of sponsorship being furnished to an Immigration Officer.
It therefore comes to this, that a student, if in doubt, should obtain an entry certificate, which assures him entry here subject to the reasonable conditions imposed, backed by an authority in his or her own country of an educational character or simply with our own authority as representing the Government—whichever he likes. That will ensure entry to this country.
Secondly, if a student is in doubt and wishes simply to be an apprentice or to spend a few casual hours at a technical college at night, my advice to the student would be that he should obtain a voucher. I am convinced that he could obtain a voucher either for a job or for his skill. If he does not want to entertain either possibility—an entry certificate or a voucher—he still can arrive on these shores and have the chance of being accepted by the immigration officer on the basis of paragraph 13 of the White Paper. I assure the Committee, in response to what the hon. Member


for Northfield said, that that will be liberally administered. I hope that hon. Members will accept that it is our desire to have genuine students in this country.

Question put, That "a substantial" stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 192, Noes 129.

Division No. 103.]
AYES
[9.34 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Morgan, William


Aitken, W. T.
Goodhart, Philip
Nabarro, Gerald


Allason, James
Goodhew, Victor
Neave, Airey


Arbuthnot, John
Gough, Frederick
Nugent, Sir Richard


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Atkins, Humphrey
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Barlow, Sir John
Green, Alan
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Barter, John
Gresham Cooke R.
Partridge, E.


Batsford, Brian
Gurden, Harold
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Peel, John


Bell, Ronald
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Percival, Ian


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Pickthorn Sir Kenneth


Biffen, John
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pitt, Miss Edith


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Pott, Percivall


Bishop, F. P.
Hastings, Stephen
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Black, Sir Cyril
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Prior, J. M. L.


Brume-Arton, A.
Hiley, Joseph
Pym, Francis


Box, Donald
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Braine, Bernard
Hirst, Geoffrey
Ramsden, James


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Holland, Philip
Rawlinson, Peter


Brooman-White, R.
Hopkins, Alan
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hornby, R. P.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Renton, David


Bryan, Paul
Hughes-Young, Michael
Ridsdale, Julian


Buck, Antony
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Bullard, Denys
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Russell, Ronald


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Jackson, John
Sharples, Richard


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Shaw, M.


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Jennings, J. C.
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


Channon, H. P. G.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Smithers, Peter


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Cleaver, Leonard
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Collard, Richard
Kimball, Marcus
Studholme, Sir Henry


Cooke, Robert
Kirk, Peter
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Cooper, A. E.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Tapsell, Peter


Corfield, F. V.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Costain, A. P.
Lindsay, Sir Martin
Teeling, William


Coulson, Michael
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Temple, John M.


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Litchfield, Capt. John
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Critchley, Julian
Longbottom, Charles
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Longden, Gilbert
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Crowder, F. P.
Loveys, Walter H.
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Turner, Colin


Dance, James
McAdden, Stephen
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Deedes, W. F.
MacArthur, Ian
van Straubenzee, W. R.


de Ferrantl, Basil
McLaren, Martin
Vickers, Miss Joan


Doughty, Charles
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


du Cann, Edward
Maclean, SirFitzroy (Bute&amp;NAyrs.)
Walder, David


Duncan, Sir James
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain (Enfield, W.)
Walker, Peter


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McMaster, Stanley R.
Wall, Patrick


Elliott, R. W.(Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)
MacPherson Niall (Dumfries)
Ward, Dame Irene


Errington, Sir Eric
Maddan, Martin
Webster, David


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Manningham-Buller, Art- Hn. Sir R.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Farr, John
Marshall, Dougles
Whitelaw, William


Finlay, Graeme
Marten, Neil
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Fisher, Nigel
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Wise, A. R.


Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Mawby, Ray
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Woollam, John


Gammans, Lady
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Worsley, Marcus


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Mills, Stratton



Gibson-Watt, David
Montgomery, Fergus
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gilmour, Sir John
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Mr. Edward Wakefield and




Mr.J. E. B. Hill.




NOES


Ainsley, William
Blyton, William
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.


Albu, Austen
Boardman, H.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Callaghan, James


Beaney, Alan
Bowles, Frank
Chapman, Donald


Benson, Sir George
Boyden, James
Cronin, John


Blackburn, F.
Brockway, A. Fenner
Crosland, Anthony




Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Prentice, R. E.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Probert, Arthur


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jeger, George
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Davies, S O. (Merthyr)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Randall, Harry


Deer, George
Jones Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Redhead, E. C.


Dempsey, James
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Diamond, John
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Dodds, Norman
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Ross, William


Driberg, Tom
Kelley, Richard
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Kenyon, Clifford
Short, Edward


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Evans, Albert
King, Dr. Horace
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Fernyhough, E.
Lawson, George
Skeffington, Arthur


Fletcher, Eric
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Lipton, Marcus
Small, William


Forman, J. C.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
MacColl, James
Sorensen, R. W.


Galpern, Sir Myer
McInnes, James
Steele, Thomas


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Stonehouse, John


Ginsburg, David
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Stones, William


Gooch, E. G.
Manuel, A. C.
Symonds, J. B.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mapp, Charles
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Mason, Roy
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Grimond, J.
Mayhew, Christopher
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Mendelson, J. J.
Thornton, Ernest


Hannan, William
Millan, Bruce
Wade, Donald


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Milne, Edward J.
Wainwright, Edwin


Hayman, F. H.
Mitchison, G. R.
Warbey, William


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Moyle, Arthur
Weitzman, David


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Hilton, A. V.
Oram, A. E.
Willey, Frederick


Holman, Percy
Owen, Will
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Houghton, Douglas
Padley, W. E.
Woof, Robert


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pargiter, G. A.



Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Parker, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Hunter, A. E.
Paton, John
Mr. Sydney Irving and




Mr. Ifor Davies.

Mr. Grimond: I beg to move, in page 2, line 48, after "time", to insert:
or for the purpose of acquiring a recognised qualification in a profession, trade or industry".
This Amendment follows directly the last Amendment and, indeed, the concluding words of the Home Secretary's speech on that Amendment. If hon. Members will look at Clause 2, subsection (3, b) they will see that it enables students attending a course of study at any university, college, school or other institution to enter the United Kingdom without quota or voucher. But there are people who come here not to attend any institution but for the purpose of taking up apprenticeship schemes, postgraduate studies, trainee schemes, to learn a craft or trade, or to further their qualifications in some profession. There are many such people who will not be covered by the subsection, and the Amendment seeks to allow them unfettered entry also.
Paragraph 14 of the instructions to immigration officers provides that if such people come here under an officially sponsored scheme they shall be admitted
on documentary evidence of sponsorship being furnished to an Immigration Officer.

But unless they come on an officially sponsored scheme they must produce a labour voucher. This fact was confirmed by the words used by the Home Secretary on the last Amendment. Further, hon. Members who were present earlier will have heard the Minister of Labour state that the rule of first come, first served would be enforced in respect of people in category C.
As I see it, therefore, the situation might well arise in which a man who wanted to come here to take up an apprenticeship or a trainee scheme would find that the quota had been filled, so to speak, for the time being, and that he could not be admitted. It is not true to say that he might be admitted under paragraph 13 of the instructions to immigration officers; if the quota was full he would not be admitted.
I have some interest in this matter. Together with other hon. Members, I am personally interested, in a small way, in trying to start a scheme by which people will be able to come here from Commonwealth countries to become apprentices, to learn about our local government system, or to be trained in many other jobs, for which I should imagine


there was a crying need within the emergent countries of the Commonwealth. As I see it, if we get this scheme floated, the people involved may find that there is no room for them; that the immigration officers have been told that the quota is full and that they cannot come into this country. I should consider that most unfortunate.
This is the sort of scheme that we should encourage. I emphasise that if it ever comes about, it will be a voluntary scheme and I take it, therefore, that it will not count as an officially sponsored scheme. Unless we insert in the Bill words similar to those proposed in the Amendment we may well find that we are excluding a great many people who may desire to come to this country, not necessarily to attend an institution, college or school but to acquire the sort of skills and experience which are needed today in the emergent countries.

Mr. Wade: I wish to support the Amendment. I hope that the Home Secretary will throw some light on the words, "other institution" in subsection (3, b). This does not appear to be defined in the Bill, or in the draft instructions. In the debate on the previous Amendment the Home Secretary used the expression "other centres of learning or instruction." I assume, therefore, that the words "other institution" must be read to mean educational institution.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I should like some help. I do not understand how this is affected by the acceptance or non-acceptance of the Amendment under discussion.

Mr. Wade: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that in a few words I may be able to explain.
If paragraph (b) is limited to institutions in the strict sense it will not include, for example, apprentices. I am thinking not only of apprentices, but of others who come here to learn professions such as accountancy, the law or medicine. Accountancy may be learned by a person working in an accountant's office, of someone studying law may work in a solicitor's office as an articled clerk, but not necessarily become a student at a university or an institution within the meaning of the subsection.
Problems may arise. For example, if a medical student it attached to a teaching

hospital presumably he would be a student within the meaning of the subsection. But if he is not, presumably he would not benefit from this provision. As I understand, those who come here to acquire skills of various kinds who are excluded from the exemption in paragraph (b) will have to obtain a voucher or be sponsored, under an official scheme. We are entitled to ask whether it is reasonable to make this differentiation between those who are students, as at present defined in the Bill, and those who come here, in the words of the Amendment,
for the purpose of acquiring a recognised qualification in a profession, trade or industry",
not only for their own benefit, but ultimately for the benefit of the country to which they return.

Dr. Alan Thompson: I wish to add a few words to the commendably brief speeches of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade). It seems that the Minister is defining education in far too narrow a sense and that is why I support what has been said by the two hon. Members.
The whole pattern of education and Commonwealth education is important to the Commonwealth. The vast mosaic of education, not merely classical education but scientific and technical education, welds the Commonwealth together and gives a great deal of significance to many Commonwealth activities. Various Commonwealth scientific and technical training committees—of one of which I am a member—are trying to cement this great mosaic of Commonwealth education which extends more widely than the narrow rigorous classifications which the Minister has described.
There are many kinds of professional, scientific and technical jobs which have been alluded to at various levels. We should not always be seeking the top level, the most academically respectable levels. The paradox is that in the Commonwealth in many cases it is the lower levels of scientific and technical training in which we want more of these people who have been referred to by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West. At the stage of development which some Commonwealth countries are, the need


is for large numbers of professional and technically skilled workers rather than a few very advanced academically qualified people.
I appeal to the Minister to look at this question and to widen his horizon. We have to acknowledge that people who come here to do this professional and technical training are basically under disadvantages and we should not add to those disadvantages. Speaking as one who was a full-time student, I have great respect for the part-time students who are pursuing professional qualifications either in brief spells by interrupting their working careers, or in the evenings during their working careers, or by correspondence courses.
I have a great respect for these professional and technical students who are working often without libraries or residential accommodation in a university, working with a lack of community life and without the give and take of academic relationships found in institutions and the mutual educational and cultural rapport in universties, colleges and schools. They are doing very valuable work for themselves and for the Commonwealth.
I strongly urge the Minister to see whether he can widen this provision. It seems to be aimed at keeping out as many as possible. That may be the purpose of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman admits that students must be admitted and seems to say that because of the tide of public opinion which favours educational advancement, and the idealism of the Commonwealth, we shall have to admit students whether we like it or not. Nevertheless, we shall define the provisions so narrowly and technically that we shall keep out many of those we might call quasi-students who qualify for jobs which professionally, scientifically and industrially can be of great value not only to the Commonwealth, but to this country.

Mr. Renton: The speeches we have heard from the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) and the hon. Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Dr. A. Thompson) on this Amendment show that there is now at this late stage a fairly clear understanding arising between my right

hon. Friend the Home Secretary and those of us on the Front Bench who have to pilot this Bill and hon. Members on the other side of the House. We certainly have no wish to exclude people who are genuinely coming here to obtain professional qualifications. We believe that the arrangements we have in mind will achieve this.
I think that the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West was particularly conscious of the fact that we have a difficulty. We are anxious to ensure that the many people who have been accustomed to come here in order to learn our ways academically and so to reinforce that bridge between our country and the civilisation of so many parts of the world shall be followed by many others. The arrangements which we have in mind are designed to ensure that that will happen without circumventing the necessary control and, in particular, the voucher scheme.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West referred to the fact that our scheme is mainly based upon the principle that people shall either come on officially sponsored courses of one kind or another or else shall be trainees or apprentices who will have vouchers. The Amendment would give an assurance of admission to anyone who could satisfy the immigration officer that he wished to enter the country for
the purpose of acquiring a recognised qualification in a profession, trade or industry.
On the face of it, that looks a very laudable object, but when it comes to drafting and administration there are a number of difficulties. First, the drafting is vague. For example, a "recognised qualification in a trade" is a very broad definition, and it would be difficult for the immigration officer to interpret it. Secondly—and this is the main objection—the Amendment would give an assurance of entry outside the voucher scheme to people coming here for whole-time employment. Many people who come for employment, especially with industrial firms, may at some time hope to acquire additional technical or other qualifications; that we concede. But it is the essence of the proposed control that these people must hold vouchers. After all, they are coming here to work, and, although study may be their ultimate purpose, it is incidental to their taking employment here.
Thirdly, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the points which he has raised are in substance already met to a considerable extent either by the Bill or by the draft instructions which we propose to give to immigration officers. Some of the people coming to obtain professional qualifications will be taking courses of study at technical colleges and other institutions, and they will be admitted as students on the basis which has already been fully explained by my right hon. Friend on a previous Amendment and during the Committee stage. If they have not enrolled for a course of study in advance and they are anxious to be sure of their position, they will be able to apply for entry certificates, which gives yet a further opportunity in addition to the two principal opportunities mentioned by the hon. Member for Hudders-field, West.
Other people whom the right hon. Gentleman evidently has in mind can come as apprentices or as trainees in factories, but they will be expected to have vouchers. But the vouchers for people wanting to come in that way will be obtainable without any difficulty. Not only will they be obtained without any difficulty but they will be issued without any regard to limitations of numbers—and that is a very important point for the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind.

Mr. Grimond: It is a very important point. May I clear this point up, because what was clearly indicated earlier was that there would be a considerable limitation of numbers. Do I understand that vouchers will be given to people who want to come here to take courses of study under a town clerk or apprenticeship courses, over and above any quota established by the Ministry of Labour in the Minister's various categories?

Mr. Renton: That is not what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, said, nor has it been said by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The point is that if someone is coming here to take employment and to learn through apprenticeship or to be a trainee at the same time, he will get a voucher not within category C, the quota, but under either category A or category B, namely, that he is coming here to fill a job which is here for him.
10.0 p.m.
The White Paper contains draft instructions and the Home Secretary has asked me to say that we shall consider these instructions in the light of the further discussion which we are having on these Amendments, that we are anxious to ensure that the point which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland is covered in substance and that we shall see, after a careful scrutiny of the instructions, that the final draft covers that point.
I hope that in view of the explanation I have given, and since our motives are almost identical, the right hon. Gentleman may feel that the best way of dealing with the matter is as I have said and not by adding to the Bill this, quite candidly, not very suitable definition.

Mr. Grimond: On the explicit under-taking that the substance of the Amendment will be met by the Government, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Speaker: The next Amendment selected is that in page 3, line 1, to leave out from "he" to "and".

Mr. Fletcher: My hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) does not desire, in view of the operation of the Guillotine, to move the Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: The next Amendment is that in page 3, line 8, at the end to insert:
(4) The power of the Minister of Labour to order the categories of persons to whom vouchers shall or shall not be issued under this subsection, and as to the number to be admitted in particular categories and in total, shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, and any statutory instrument containing such an order shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

Mr. Fletcher: I am sorry again to say, Mr. Speaker, that owing to the operation of the Guillotine we shall be unable to move this Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: The next Amendment selected is that in page 3, line 8, at the end to insert:
(4) Admission into the United Kingdom shall not be refused under this section in the case of a Commonwealth citizen who produces to an immigration officer a valid immigration certificate isued in accordance with the provisions of the Schedule (Immigration Certificates) to this Act.

Mr. Fletcher: I am sorry but, for the same reason, owing to the operation of the Guillotine, we shall be unable to discuss this Amendment.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson: I beg to move, in page 3, line 13, to leave out "the immigration officer, or to".
At 28 minutes before the Guillotine falls on the first 15 Clauses of the Bill on Report we are, for the first time, now discussing the only subsection of the Bill proper that deals with refusal of admission to this this country on health grounds. I make the strongest possible protest at the operation of the Guillotine in this connection. The only reason why we can have even this discussion is that my hon. Friends have agreed not to move a number of equally important Amendments.
All hon. Members have the greatest opinion of the immigration officers' qualities and, indeed, of their qualifications for their job. But I doubt whether anyone would suggest that those qualifications would normally include the qualifications of a medical practitioner. We feel that it is quite right that it should be left to the immigration officer to decide whether a prospective immigrant should be admitted or refused admission on the grounds set out in this subsection, namely,
if it appears to the immigration officer, or to a medical inspector, that he is a person suffering from mental disorder, or that it is otherwise undesirable for medical reasons that he should be admitted …
I am not sure that I will be altogether happy with this part of the subsection even if the Amendment is accepted.
The Minister of State will recall that some time ago we discussed the Mental Health Bill, which is now the Mental Health Act, 1959. For the purposes of the courts in this country, whether or not a man is suffering from mental disorder can be determined only after a report from a practising psychiatrist. I use the convenient term, which is defined a little long-windedly in the Act. I am not sure, therefore, that even a medical officer is normally competent to decide whether someone is or is not suffering from mental disorder. However, it is a little better than leaving it to an immigration officer.
I hope that the Minister of State will realise that this is not a matter for the immigration officer and that it should be left only to a medical inspector to decide whether a person may enter this country or have to stay outside on medical grounds.

Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman has stuck to the fairly narrow point raised by the Amendment, and I shall deal with just that point. His object is that no immigrant shall be refused admission on mental or medical grounds on the judgment of an immigration officer alone. I dare say that in this context he has considered paragraph 39 of the White Paper where he will find defined the circumstances in which an immigration officer will refer an immigrant for medical examination. I stress that it will be most unusual for him to refuse entry on medical grounds without having referred the matter to a medical officer for medical examination, but I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that circumstances could arise in which the power would be needed and to accept that it would be just as well for us to leave the power in the Bill.
I leave aside for the moment mental health. I shall come to that later. The hon. Gentleman will know that, in order to ease the passage of travellers, whether they be Commonwealth immigrants, United Kingdom residents or aliens, we have in recent years increasingly developed the practice of having an immigration officer travel on ships. For example, I believe that the trans-Atlantic run nowadays is always done with an immigration officer on board the ships which carry a large number of passengers.
It may well be that, in the course of a voyage, it comes to the notice of the immigration officer that somebody who is coming here with—as it would be at present under the Aliens Order—a Ministry of Labour permit is taken ill, perhaps seriously ill. By consulting the ship's doctor, he is able to decide on the spot and tell the person concerned that, because of his illness as to which the immigration officer has been able to take the advice of the ship's doctor, he would not be allowed to land in this country. It must obviously be a convenience for that to be done. If the person is not able to land, the shipping


company will have an obligation to take him back, and it is best that he should go back on the same ship, and if he is still unwell by the end of the voyage, as necessarily will be the case if he is refused leave to land, the person is saved the trouble of coming off the ship to receive a medical examination on shore.
We feel that it is right in those circumstances that an immigration officer should have power to refuse leave to land and to do so without having consulted a medical officer on shore but having taken medical advice on the ship.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: Am I to assume that the person who is ill is not so acutely ill that he need be taken off the ship? Do I take it that the Government will not be so abominable in their treatment of people that they will take off the ships those who need medical aid and who would get it in this country irrespective of all this paraphernalia of admissions and so forth?

Mr. Renton: I am assuming the case where the nature of the illness is such that a person ought to be refused leave to land in accordance with subsection (4, a), which states:
… if it appears to the immigration officer, or to a medical inspector, that he is a person suffering from mental disorder, or that it is oterwise undesirable for medical reasons that he should be admitted:…
It is impossible to deal hypothetically with the very wide range of different circumstances which might arise. Speaking broadly, the situation which might arise is this: the passenger is in possession of an employment voucher but his illness is such that if he came here he would not be able to work because of his medical condition. In those circumstances, we think that it is perfectly right for the immigration officer, having consulted the ship's doctor, to be in a position to say to that person, "I am awfully sorry but, although you have a voucher, it is obvious from your illness that you will not be able to work, and, therefore, the voucher cannot be taken up." That is the effect of subsection (4, a).
The hon. Gentleman's Amendment would mean that the immigration officer would not be able to take a decision at all until the ship had berthed and until the person concerned had come ashore and had been examined by a medical

inspector. We do not think that is sensible. I hope that on reflection the hon. Gentleman might agree with us.
I now come to the question of mental disorder. Of course, in no difficult case or in no case of doubt would the immigration officer take it upon himself to refuse leave to land to somebody unless the most careful examination had been made of the person's mental disorder. In the case of the administration of the Aliens' Order, and it might well be in the case of Commonwealth immigrants, there is an occasional case, admittedly a very rare case, in which a person is so obviously mentally deranged that the immigration officer and everybody within singht can tell for himself that the person is suffering from mental disorder.
10.15 p.m.
I am sure that, in spite of what the hon. Member has said about the experience which we both had of the Mental Health Act, in those circumstances he would not insist that we should go through all the palaver of a reference to a medical inspector. We feel it right that in these rare obvious cases the immigration officer should have power, in accordance with subsection (4, a), to refuse permission to land. For those reasons, we feel it right to advise the House that the Amendment, moved in a very constructive spirit, should not be accepted.

Mr. K. Robinson: By leave of the House, I do not think that my hon. Friends will have been very satisfied with the reply of the Minister of State. He has adduced one or two very remote types of case in support of his argument for retaining these powers to the immigration officer. I am not sure that I agree with him about these "very obvious cases" of mental disorder. Some very serious mistakes have been made about what appeared to be obvious cases of mental disorder.
Even assuming that it is necessary to provide for that possibility, the right hon. Gentleman wants to remove all protection and give the immigration officer blanket powers to refuse admission on grounds of mental disorder or other health grounds. These are not powers which ought to be given to an immigration officer. In normal circumstances I would ask my hon. Friends to divide in support of the Amendment, but in order


that we shall have an opportunity to discuss the next important Amendment, I am prepared to see this negatived.

Amendment negatived.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move, in page 3, line 15, to leave out from "or" to "or" in line 16 and to insert "serious transmissible disease".
The refusal of the Government to accept the previous Amendment only strengthens the case for accepting this. An immigration officer, who now, apparently, has to exercise certain medical functions, could be faced with three possibilities. He could have someone suffering from a grossly mental condition, so gross that even the immigration officer could perceive it, and he might also have someone who was suffering from a mental condition which was not so gross but who would be kept out under some other arrangement, which is also reprehensible.
The second possibility is that, acting under his normal instructions about port health and so on, he might come across a case of serious illness, like smallpox or some such transmissible disease, in the period of manifestation, so that even he could see that this was the kind of person who ought to be treated differently and not be admitted to the country among the public.
But when it comes to the third category, a person who may be ill, it becomes very tricky indeed. How is this immigration officer to decide when a person should not be admitted for medical reasons other than mental disorder of a gross nature, or a serious transmissible disease? The immigrant must be suffering from a physical disease which is either acute or chronic. If it is a physical disease in an acute form, I do not know how the Government will refuse the immigrant admission—he might be suffering from a serious surgical catastrophe, a perforation or haematosis, or other surgical condition demanding immediate attention. Surely the Government do not mean that.
On the other hand, in the chronic form it is more difficult. Is the immigration officer to say that he cannot admit a man because he has discovered that he is suffering from diabetes or some other chronic systematic disease which might

mean a charge on public funds. I can see no reason for arguing that we should refuse these people on any other ground for they might be useful citizens, as are many citizens who suffer from chronic diseases.
There are people who get many drugs from the National Health Service for rheumatoid, cardiac, or diabetic disease, and so on, but who are in themselves excellent workers and who contribute much more to the Exchequer as a result of their being excellent workers than they take from it indirectly through the Health Service. How is the immigration officer to decide in a short time, under a Bill of this kind, when there are so many sensitivities and when blanket powers are given to unqualified men?
I go further and say that even a medical man would find it unfair to have the job of saying that, having calculated the amount of money which would be involved in treatment of the immigrant, admission should be refused. It is not the job of a medical officer to say what might be the charge on the public purse and that an immigrant cannot be admitted because he suffers from a chronic sickness which it is too expensive to treat. How can a medical man make what is, in effect, an economic assessment of this would-be immigrant?
The Government have a very bad case for leaving the position of those with physical disease, as distinct from mental disease, so badly defined. I should like them to be more precise and I move the Amendment in the hope that it will meet the case.

Mr. Renton: I do not blame the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) for the fact that the way in which he moved his Amendment betrayed a misunderstanding of what the immigration officers will do. I hoped that I had explained on the previous Amendment the somewhat rare cases in which the immigration officer would decide the matter without reference to a medical inspector. In practice, however, he will refer to a medical inspector the case of anyone who is coming here for permanent settlement and also anyone who, he considers, should be medically examined. There will be a


medical inspector at every port—seaports and airports—to help him with this work.
Examples of health grounds on which admission may be refused are mental disorder or any grave physical condition such as crippling orthopaedic disease or serious eye disease which would prevent the person concerned from supporting himself or his dependants or which could require major medical treatment.

Mr. Fletcher: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman quoting from something?

Mr. Renton: Only from my notes, if I may be allowed to do that. It is as well to get the terminology correct sometimes.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Is that provided for in the proposed regulations?

Mr. Renton: In the time available, the hon. Member might let me have a little free run, because I believe that I can help to clarify things for him.
The instructions of the Minister of Health to medical inspectors are not suitable to be published as a White Paper or in any other form. As a medical man, the hon. Member will no doubt see the reason for that. These instructions do not concern questions of policy such as we have been debating in connection with the Bill, but will consist of guidance of a clinical character. They will vary from time to time with methods and circumstances and, if necessary, at short notice, they might have to be changed in the light of scientific developments and information received about health conditions in countries from which the immigrants come.
The powers which will be given to medical officers include the power, if necessary, to order an X-ray examination or any other technical examination. We have tabled an Amendment to paragraph 1 (5) of the First Schedule to place it beyond doubt that a medical inspection by X-ray or other apparatus may be carried out by a radiologist or another expert at the request of the medical inspector, although not necessarily by the medical inspector himself. This will give full powers to carry out X-ray examinations to whatever extent

may be considered necessary or desirable.
Strictly speaking, the Amendment involves merely a drafting point. The hon. Member for Greenock wants us to insert "serious transmissible disease" instead of the existing words. Unfortunately, however, the words that the hon. Member proposes are unacceptable, for two reasons. First, the expression "serious transmissible disease" is too imprecise for statutory purposes. There are many degrees of seriousness and some diseases are more readily transmissible than others. How could an immigration officer, in the rare cases in which he may have to decide himself in the light of advice from, say, a ship's doctor, know whether he was exceeding his powers?
There are other physical conditions—and the hon. Member, with his medical knowledge, will appreciate this—than the possession of serious transmissible disease which, equally, would justify the refusal of admission. For example, the immigrant may be in such a physical condition that he is unlikely to be able to work even though he may have obtained an employment voucher, or his condition may require what the hon. Member himself mentioned, namely, medical treatment.
I can, however, give the assurance that although, after careful thought, we feel that it is not possible to define this power more closely in the Bill than we have done in statutory terms, we do not intend to use the power or to instruct immigration officers or medical inspectors to use it except in the kind of circumstances which I have indicated.
That being the position, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that we have the Bill drafted in more practical terms, in a sense in more generous terms and certainly in more workable terms than he envisaged. I hope also that he will appreciate that in practice responsibility for refusing admission on medical grounds will devolve in practically every case upon a medical inspector after holding such examination as that medical inspector thinks necessary.

Mr. K. Robinson: In the course of a somewhat unsatisfactory reply to the Amendment, the Minister of State made one remark which disturbed me very


much indeed. He said that the immigration officer might decide, and possibly the medical inspector, too, might decide, that it was undesirable to admit an immigrant if he required medical treatment. We have understood for some time that arrangements have been made to exclude as far as possible aliens coming into the country in order to use our National Health Service for the purposes of medical treatment.
But the doctrine which the Minister has now enunciated goes very much further. Are we to take it that it will be within the competence of an immigration officer or a medical inspector to refuse admission to a would-be Commonwealth immigrant who has developed a condition on the way here which requires medical treatment and who, on any other grounds, would be admissible to this country? This is a most disturbing suggestion.
The whole of the provisions in this subsection worry me profoundly and we have not even had an assurance from the Minister that an immigration officer, exercising his powers under the Clause, will consult a medical man at all. He says that he probably will if he is carried on a ship, but there is no undertaking that he has to do so. The whole Clause is subject to grievous criticism and I hope that my hon. Friends will divide on the Amendment.

Mr. Renton: The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) either did not hear me, or has not understood me. I said that it would be only rarely that the immigration officer would take upon himself, and then in that limited range of cases which I have mentioned, to decide to reject somebody on medical grounds, and he would refer

to the medical inspector people coming here for settlement or anyone else whom the immigration officer considered should be medically examined.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Weitzman: I beg to move, in page 3, line 18, to leave out from "has" to "crime" and to insert:
within the last five years been sentenced to a term of imprisonment for twelve months or more for a ".
As the Clause stands, an immigration officer may refuse admission if he has reason to believe that a Commonwealth citizen has been convicted in any country of any crime, whenever committed, which is an extradition crime within the meaning of the Extradition Acts. These crimes cover a wide range. They comprise, for example, offences under the Bankruptcy Act, embezzlement, false pretences and larceny. This means that a person of 50 years of age, convicted in his early youth in any country whatever of any such crime, however slight and however lightly he may have been punished, may not be admitted into the country.
I seek to have this modified by the insertion of the words in the Amendment. That seems to me to be a very reasonable modification. It would seem absurd that the wide latitude allowed in the Clause should remain.

It being half-past Ten o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 187, Noes 112.

Division No. 104.]
AYES
[10.30 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Critchley, Julian


Aitken, W. T.
Bryan, Paul
Crosthwaite-Ayre, Col. Sir Oliver


Allason, James
Buck, Antony
Crowder, F. P.


Arbuthnot, John
Bullard, Denys
Curran, Charles


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Dalkeith, Earl of


Atkins, Humphrey
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden)
Dance, James


Barlow, Sir John
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Deedes, W. F.


Barter, John
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
de Ferranti, Basil


Batsford, Brian
Channon, H. P. C.
Doughty, Charles


Biffen, John
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Drayson, G. B.


Birch, Art, Hon. Nigel
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
du Cann, Edward


Bishop, F. P.
Cleaver, Leonard
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Black, Sir Cyril
Collard, Richard
Elliot, R. W. (Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.)


Brume-Arton, A.
Cooper, A. E.
Errington, Sir Eric


Box, Donald
Corfield, F. V.
Farey-Jones, F. W.


Braine, Bernard
Costain, A. P.
Farr, John


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter
Coulson, Michael
Finlay, Graeme


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Craddock, Sir Beresford
Fisher, Nigel




Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Litchfield, Capt. John
Renton, David


Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Longbottom, Charles
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Longden, Gilbert
Ridsdale, Julian


Gammans, Lady
Loveys, Walter H.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Gibson-Watt, David
MacArthur, Ian
Russell, Ronald


Gilmour, Sir John
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Scott-Hopkins, James


Glover, Sir Douglas
Maclean, SirFitzroy (Bute&amp;N. Ayrs.)
Sharples, Richard


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain (Enfield, W.)
Shaw, M.


Goodhart, Philip
McMaster, Stanley R.
Skeet, T. H. H.


Goodhew, Victor
MacPherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Maddan, Martin
Smithers, Peter


Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Green, Alan
Marshall, Douglas
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Gresham Cooke, R.
Marten, Neil
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Gurden, Harold
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Matthews Gordon (Mariden)
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Mawby, Ray
Tapsell, Peter


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Temple, John M.


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Mills, Stratton
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Hastings, Stephen
Montgomery, Fergus
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Hiley, Joseph
Morgan, William
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Nabarro, Gerald
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Holland, Philip
Neave, Airey
Turner, Colin


Hopkins, Alan
Nugent Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Hornby, R. P.
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Vickers, Miss Joan


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Hughes-Young, Michael
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Partridge, E.
Walder, David


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Walker, Peter


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Peel, John
Wall, Patrick


Jackson, John
Percival, Ian
Ward, Dame Irene


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Webster, David


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pitt, Miss Edith
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Pott, Percivall
Whitelaw, William


Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Prior, J. M. L.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Kershaw, Anthony
Pym, Francis
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Kimball, Marcus
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Woodhouse, C. M.


Kirk, Peter
Ramsden, James
Woollam, John


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Rawlinson, Peter
Worsley, Marcus


Lindsay, Sir Martin
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin



Linstead, Sir Hugh
Rees-Davies, W. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. J. E. B. Hill and Mr. McLaren.




NOES


Ainsley, William
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Millan, Bruce


Albu, Austen
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Milne, Edward


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hannan, William
Mitchison, G. R.


Baird, John
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Morris, John


Beaney, Alan
Hayman, F. H.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)


Benson, Sir George
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Oram, A. E.


Blackburn, F.
Hilton, A. V.
Owen, Will


Blyton, William
Holman, Percy
Padley, W. E.


Boardman, H.
Houghton, Douglas
Pannell Charles (Leeds, W.)


Bowles, Frank
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pargiter, G. A.


Boyden, James
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Parker, John


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pavitt, Laurence


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hunter, A. E.
Prentice, R. E.


Callaghan, James
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Probert, Arthur


Cronin, John
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Crosland, Anthony
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Randall, Harry


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jeger, George
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Davies, (for (Gower)
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Ross, William


Deer, George
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Short, Edward


Dempsey, James
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Diamond, John
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Dodds, Norman
Kelley, Richard
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Evans, Albert
Kenyon, Clifford
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Fernyhough, E.
King, Dr. Horace
Small, William


Fletcher, Eric
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Sorensen, R. W.


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stonehouse, John


Forman, J. C.
MacColl, James
Stones, William


Galpern, Sir Myer
McInnes, James
Symonds, J. B.


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Cinsburg, David
Manuel, A. C.
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Gooch, E. G.
Mapp, Charles
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mason, Roy
Thornton, Ernest


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Mendelson, J. J.
Wainwright, Edwin







Warbey, William
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)



Weitzman, David
Woof, Robert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wilkins, W. A.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Mr. Redhead and Mr. Lawson.


Willey, Frederick

Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions on Amendments, moved by a Member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to that part of the Bill to be concluded at half-past Ten o'clock.

Clause 4.—(OFFENCES IN CONNECTION WITH CONTROL OF IMMIGRATION.)

Amendments made: In page 4, line 48, leave out from "any" to "or" in line 49 and insert:
return, statement or representation which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true".

In page 5, line 1, leave out from "refuses" to first "this" in line 4 and insert:
or fails to produce or furnish to any such officer or person any document or information which he is required to produce or furnish to that officer or person under".—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Clause 7.—(POWER OF COURT TO RECOMMEND FOR DEPORTATION.)

Amendment made: In page 6, line 41, at end insert:
(5) No recommendation for deportation "hall be made upon a conviction of an offence committed before the commencement of this section.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Clause 8.—(PROCEDURE AND APPEALS IN RESPECT OF RECOMMENDATIONS.)

Amendment made: In page 6, line 44, leave out "three" and insert "seven".—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Bill, as amended, to be further considered upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — COAL CONSUMERS' COUNCILS (NORTHERN IRISH INTERESTS) [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the appointment to the Industrial Coal Consumers' Council and the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council of persons to represent Northern Irish interests, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of that Act in the sums payable out of such moneys by way of remuneration, allowances and expenses payable by the Minister under subsection (6) of section four of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — ATOMIC ENERGY AND RADIOACTIVE SUBSTANCES

10.43 p.m.

Mr. R. G. Mitchison: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Nuclear Installations Regulations, 1962 (S.I. 1962, No. 37), dated 9th January 1962, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th January, be annulled.
The Guillotine is a somewhat old-fashioned instrument; not so the subject matter of this Prayer. These Regulations are to bring within the purview of the 1959 Act, for the purposes of licensing and insurance—and, therefore, of inspection—a variety of types of nuclear installation. They follow on, but, I notice, do not repeal, the Nuclear Installations Regulations, 1960.
There are two points that I want to raise about the Regulations. The first is the relation of the two sets. I fully appreciate that, with the development of research and manufacture in these matters, new Regulations will have to be brought in from time to time, but I should have thought that when new ones were brought in it was somewhat tidier to repeal the old ones at the same time and have the whole thing in one set of Regulations instead of leaving two sets in force, thereby complicating the matter for those who have to see to their operation.
When I compare these latest Regulations with the Regulations of the same titile of 1960—Statutory Instrument, 1960, No. 1255—I see that, among other things, the 1960 Regulations provide, as do the present ones, for
any installation designed or adapted for the storage or processing of irradiated nuclear fuel other than storage incidental to the carriage of such nuclear fuel".
but that the additional words of the 1960 Regulations—
or the carrying out of research in connection with, such elements
appear to have been withdrawn. Although, no doubt, they are still valid for the purposes of obedience to them, it seems odd that carriage and storage for the purposes of research was to be licensed under the 1960 Regulations but under these Regulations it is no longer

covered. I trust that when he replies the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to explain that.
There is another difference. I have been quoting from sub-paragraph (d). I now turn to sub-paragraph (a). Comparing that with the 1960 Regulations, they seem broadly similar, except that in the present Regulations no process
carried out solely for the purposes of chemical or isotopic assay of such alloy or chemical compound
has been inserted. What is the purpose of that insertion? Sub-paragraphs (b) and (c) are, I think, entirely new. One is the case of installations in test rigs and the other the case of installations where the plant contains enriched uranium or compounds of it and in which
a controlled chain reaction can be maintained with an additional source of neutrons.
As I understand, the real danger in all these cases is the possible presence of what is called a critical mass, which is a mass of such amount as may start a chain reaction on its own. I am no great scientist, and I hope that I have got it right, but I understand that that broadly is the risk.
I should like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary exactly what is the character and purpose of the installations—I do not mean their technical purpose, but their practical purpose—which will be covered in this case. He of course knows the Act, but I remind the House that what we are dealing with here are installations which are not those of the Atomic Energy Authority but other installations
designed or adapted for the production or use of atomic energy
or
the carrying out of any process which is preparatory or ancillary to the production or use,
of it. I need not quote the language of the Act. What we are dealing with are private installations, not those of the Atomic Energy Authority which are either going to produce or use atomic energy or carry out some process—I may use very general words—towards that production or use. I am somewhat puzzled that not only should the 1960 Regulations be continued, but that they should be extended in this case in the direction I have tried to indicate.
To put the matter in the plainest English, what I want to know is, why cannot the Atomic Energy Authority do this itself, and what is the need for carrying on these processes, the test rigs and the rest, by private installations which are to be licensed and attract insurance provisions accordingly? One becomes a little suspicious—I hope I am not putting it too high—about things which seem obviously to be functions of the Atomic Energy Authority, which was intended to have a certain element of monopoly in it, which now require to be licensed because they are carried on by private installations. What, for this sort of purpose, is the relation between the Atomic Energy Authority and the private contractors or enterprises, whatever they may be, with whom we are dealing, in effect, in the case of these Regulations? I am not asking the Parliamentary Secretary to produce names or anything of that sort, but both for the purposes which I have indicated already and for that which I shall indicate in a minute, I should like to have some idea of the extent of all this.
I have turned again, as I did the other day, to the paper in The Three Banks Review by Sir Christopher Hinton, a very interesting contribution explaining the importance of atomic energy for the production of electricity and the developments which are taking place in that direction. I noticed through other sources that the largest beryllium factory in this country had been shut down and that they were turning over to stainless steel, and that involves, if I understand the conclusions rightly, the use of even more enriched uranium than would be required if the containers were made of beryllium.
That being so, it seems that we are dealing not merely with enriched uranium, which I think is the subject matter of all this, but with uranium likely to be enriched to an even greater extent than it has been at any rate in the immediate past. I see the Parliamentary Secretary shaking his head. I feel sure that his Department has resources not only for the comprehension but also for the elucidation of these matters which he would be glad to deploy in a minute or two. He will gather from what I have said that we approach this matter not with any savage intention,

not determined to press it to a desperate conclusion, but desiring to find out what is going on because of the very dangerous elements which are there in these processes which involve, wherever they are set up, a corresponding possibility of danger to the public.
I turn from that to the second question which I wish to raise. On 29th January, we had a debate about some Regulations which were introduced by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. There appear to be a variety of Ministries concerned in the matter. This time it was in the interests of clean air. They included installations dealing with beryllium and selenium, which do not concern us tonight, and also such uranium installations as were not to be licensed under the Nuclear Installations (Licensing and Insurance) Act, 1959. Those uranium installations were to be inspected by the Alkali Inspectorate for the purpose of seeing that they did not emit poisonous fumes, and we were told in the course of the discussion that uranium emitted poisonous fumes, although not, I think, quite to the extent that the other two elements did. I am anxious to know what is to happen on that aspect of the matter.
The inspectors who are under the control of the Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friend are not inspecting for the purpose of clean air; they are inspecting for the purpose of radiation. But they will nonetheless be dealing with plant which will be capable of doing damage to the public, if anything goes wrong, not only by way of radiation but also by way of the effect on clean air. Clean air is the business of another inspectorate, the Alkali Inspectorate, incidentally a rather smaller inspectorate than that with which the hon. Gentleman's Department is concerned.
Can we be assured—and I hope we shall be clear about this matter—that the inspection for the purposes of radiation will either itself cover any possibility of danger by poisonous fumes—and I refer to danger to the public—or, if it does not do that, that arrangements will be made for another inspection—probably by the alkali inspectors—to cover that particular danger—the directly poisonous element that may be given out in these cases?
Although those are the two main points I wished to raise, there is another important matter. These are cases where we are dealing with installations designed, to some extent, for experimental purposes by way of research and development. They are, apparently, private installations. I would like to know, therefore, what steps are being taken to secure that any private enterprise in this direction is co-ordinated with the research and development directly sponsored by the Atomic Energy Authority. I ask this because this is one of the objects of the Regulations as I see it—to enable research and development to be carried on by licensing installations for the purpose.
I hope I have made my inquiries clear, and I repeat to the Parliamentary Secretary that I think it right and proper that, in the present state of knowledge and development about these matters, we should be told as much as it is possible to reveal—and I do not imagine that there is any great secrecy about this—about what is going on, not only because there is great public interest in it and it is of great public importance, but because it obviously involves elements of insecurity to the public which it is right and proper should be examined carefully to see that sufficient precautions are to be taken.

10.58 p.m.

Mr. Roy Mason: I do not rise to oppose the Regulations but to seek further information about this content. When we were discussing nuclear installations in the past, hon. Members were aware that Regulations would be following in due course as the nuclear energy programme got under any way and as that programme developed. I am pleased, therefore, that the Regulations have been introduced to try to plug some of the gaps that have been emerging.
I notice that, according to the Regulations, four new types of installations will come within their scope. The first concerns alloy or chemical compounds of enriched uranium products. The second is where enriched uranium is incorporated in a test rig for irradiation in nuclear reactors. The third comprises plant for the production of neutrons containing enriched uranium in which a controlled chain reaction might

be maintained. The fourth concerns the processing or storage of nuclear fuel.
This means that there will be stocks of nuclear fuel in certain places and, where there is processing, there is the possibility that there may be nuclear or radioactive waste flowing from the processes. I am, therefore, particularly interested in the fourth type of installation that comes within the scope of these Regulations.
In this connection I look through Cmnd. 338, which was the Report of the Committee appointed by the Prime Minister to examine the organisation of certain parts of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, and in paragraph 49, concerning the production of fuel for the civil programme—and the Regulations under discussion particularly deal with the storage and processing of fuel—it states:
The task of fabricating and reprocessing fuel is already a big one, and in support of these highly technical production operations, the Group"—
that is, the Industrial Group of the Atomic Energy Authority—
has a large programme of research and development. With a rapid growth in demand for fuel for the Civil Power Programme and for overseas customers, the scale of operations can be expected to increase substantially in some two or three years' time".
The Report was dated 1957, so the Committee's expectations have been proved correct.
Of course, the scale of operations may grow much more rapidly than hitherto because, if the Government decide that Britain shall go into the Common Market and so become a member of Euratom, there will be the possibility that our nuclear energy activities may receive a boost on account of the potentially greater markets in Europe. Therefore, these Regulations, as well as closing some of the gaps in safety which have shown up in the past four or five years, are appropriate for developments which may take place if we go into Euratom.
The first question I have to put relates to the inspectorates. When I consider the enormous number of people, Departments or Ministries responsible for inspecting various parts of our atomic energy activities, I think it is remarkable that we manage to get our inspection done satisfactorily at all. I notice


that in the Defence White Paper there is talk of a future unified command. If there is anything where the case for having a unified command is overwhelming, it is surely in the inspection of our atomic energy installations and activities. There are inspectors touring the installations, examining the radioactive fall-out from the stacks, examining the effluent into the sea and the estuaries, and so on.
First, the Ministry of Labour is involved where radio-isotopes are going into industry. The Ministry of Defence is involved because of nuclear materials for defence establishments. The Ministry of Power has an inspectorate because of its interest in fuel. The Atomic Energy Authority and the Central Electricity Generating Authority are concerned as producer and users of nuclear fuel. The Minister for Science has some responsibility. The Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have separate inspectorates which tour the installations. The Ministry of Health has a responsibility because of the growing need to use radio isotopes and radioactive substances in hospitals. The Ministry of Education is concerned because radioactive materials are being introduced into the universities for use in experimental reactors. There seems to be no co-ordination or proper link between all these activities and the work of the inspectorates of the various Departments.
Tonight, because we are dealing with nuclear fuel, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power is to reply. It could have been the Parliamentary Secretary for Science, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, and so on. This is our position today. At one time, we used to be able to question the Prime Minister, who was primarily responsible for all atomic energy matters. Then he delegated responsibility to his noble Friend in another place and to the Parliamentary Secretary for Science. It seems that all the Departments are taking a little responsibility and there is no overlord. There is a strong case for unification so that we may have someone responsible to the House of Commons for all inspection activities.
The Ministry of Housing and Local Government makes inspections throughout all nuclear installations, checking the escape from the stacks to see to what extent it settles on crops or is taken up by sheep or cattle. The Ministry of Agriculture sends its inspectors ranging far and wide around our coastline to check the radioactive effluent from nuclear energy installations. Then we have inspectors who are going into the installations themselves. So it goes on, and I would have thought that there was a chance for the Parliamentary Secretary to make representations to his right hon. Friend about whether it was possible for some person responsible to the House to take under his wing all the inspectors who are checking safety within our atomic power installations.
The second point is a matter which I have raised many times but on which we do not seem to make any progress. There is an urgent need for a code of symbols for radioactive material containers. All radioactive materials, nuclear fuels or others, moving from place to place on trains, the highways, or by air, should be in containers so stacked that their symbols indicate to what extent the material is dangerous. If there were an accident or fire, the firemen or policemen dealing with it would immediately know how dangerous was the radioactive material. The Parliamentary Secretary's Department has replied on this matter in the past, and I hope that he will be able to help tonight.
I now turn to nuclear fuel storage and processing. We have many atomic power station whose life is limited to roughly twenty years, and ten years from now we shall probably have two or three which will be virtually dead; vast, gaunt structures towering into the sky, all highly radioactive. Although it may be spent, it will still be highly radioactive fuel. What are we to do with them? Are the Government giving any consideration to this matter? We shall not be able to remove them very easily, and I should like to know to what extent the Government are considering the planning and designing of future nuclear power reactors so that the heart of the reactor can be underground so that it can be covered over when the nuclear furnace has served its useful life.


Are we to be stuck with these stations all over the countryside, containing nuclear fuel which is spent but which is still highly radioactive?
There obviously will be waste in the processing of radioactive fuels required for various types of atomic power stations. This waste is already piling up at a tremendous rate. We are experimenting a great deal at Harwell to try satisfactorily to solve the problem of the safe storage of the radioactive waste materials resulting from the processing of nuclear fuels. This is proving a very difficult job, but as the atomic industry is in its infancy, this is bound to be a growing problem, and we ought to attach a great deal of importance to it now.
We have a remarkable record of safety at nuclear power installations in this country and safety from any possible accident which might occur from the use of radioactive materials, substances and radio isotopes. That has always impressed international observers who have toured air atomic energy installations. I applaud these Regulations because they help us to keep it that way. We must continuously watch over the transport, use and processing of these nuclear fuels and radioactive materials, and we do not want any careless or casual use. We should encourage their use as much as possible in industry, agriculture, medicine, science and so on, but on every occasion we must make sure that it is under strict control.
I hope that the Minister will be able to answer the points which I have made about the Inspectorate, and I applaud the introduction of these Regulations.

11.10 p.m.

Mrs. Judith Hart: I should like to add to what my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) has said, but I will be brief to give the Parliamentary Secretary adequate time to reply to the interesting points which have been raised by my hon. Friend as well as by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). I, too, am concerned about some aspects of the situation arising from the Regulations. One of those aspects is the question of an inspectorate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley has pointed to the varied

nature of inspectorates and their varied responsibility under the different Ministries and Acts passed by this House. Is the Parliamentary Secretary certain that there will be an adequate inspectorate to enforce the Regulations? My hon. Friend has referred to one inspectorate, that set up under the Radioactive Substances Act, which is the responsibility of the Minister of Housing and Local Government and of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but I understand that that Act is not yet in operation. The reason for this is that there is difficulty in acquiring enough good, trained, skilled inspectors. This is remarkable, because it is two years since the Act completed its Committee stage. At that time, we spoke of the need to pay adequate salaries to inspectors if we were to get enough of them—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but she is getting wide of the Regulations.

Mrs. Hart: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. My point is that we are con-corned with an inspectorate which will have the duty of ensuring that the Regulations are effectively carried out, and if there is a shortage of inspectors and it is difficult to get enough of them for an ancillary branch of nuclear energy, I should like an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary that there will not be a similar shortage of inspectors under tonight's Regulations and that the inspectorate will not be inhibited from being able to ensure that they are effectively enforced.
That is particularly important because of the general dangers to the public that can be involved, particularly in the storage rather than in the processing of radioactive substances. I am sure that in their processing good and careful precautions will be taken to protect the workers and that the whole matter will be kept under complete scientific control and be carefully planned and designed. There have been, however, instances in the general storage of radioactive materials which lead one to doubt whether in all cases the storage facilities are adequately protected from public access. This, too, is a matter in which I should like the Parliamentary Secretary's assurance.
On 5th February, for example, an Army depot was in the news when several small boys, according to the newspaper reports, gained access and obtained several containers containing radio-active material, two or three of which were later found smashed against the wall and two or three of which were missing. There was grave concern—

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: On a point of order. I submit, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that both the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) and the hon. Lady the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) have gone well beyond Section 1 (1, b) of the Act which governs the Regulations. As far as I can see, the Regulations relate only to additions to paragraph (b), which lists installations which
no person other than the Authority 
shall install or operate at sites. I suggest that both hon. Members are going well beyond the terms of the Regulations.

Mr. Mason: Further to that point of order. I should like to draw the attention of the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) to the Regulations to show that I was in order. I am very much against being chastised in this form, especially when I have taken great care to ensure that I am in order. If one looks at paragraph 3, headed "Prescribed installations," and turns to sub-paragraph (d), it will be seen that there is reference to
any installation designed or adapted for the storage or processing of irradiated nuclear fuel other than storage incidental to the carriage of such nuclear fuel
and that this is in order. It is on that point that my remarks were concentrated.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that the original Act can be quoted, but I understood that the hon. Lady was giving an illustration.

Mrs. Hart: I was referring to the storage of irradiated material and simply commenting that there had been incidents where public access could be gained to Crown property on which radioactive material was being stored, and I was seeking a reassurance from the Parliamentary Secretary that public access will not be possible to these

installations. Is the hon. Gentleman sure that his Inspectorate is adequate to make certain that these premises are sufficiently guarded against public access? One is fully entitled to ask that, because there is a very real danger existing for the public.
Control over radioactive waste is effectively looked after by the Government and the local authorities—or it will be when the Radioactive Substances Act becomes operative—but members of the public and in particular children may, if premises are not guarded, get into them, and it is exactly that kind of accident against which we should guard. I hasten to say that, like my hon. Friend, I have no vehement opposition to the Regulations but merely put forward my observations by way of inquiry.

11.18 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. J. C. George): The hon. Lady the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) has asked me for a full reply but has ensured that I shall not be able to reply by consuming so much time on matters which are outside these Regulations, as also has the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason); but I will try to explain the more important points raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). He asked why we did not repeal the 1960 Regulations when the 1962 Regulations were made. The answer is simply that they deal with quite different matters. Added together, there should not be much difficulty in absorbing them both.
Then, I was asked why the Atomic Energy Authority did not do this work itself but put it into private hands. This material in skilled private hands is just as safe as in skilled public hands, and while private industrial concerns may not produce enriched uranium, or extract uranium or plutonium, they must be enabled to handle enriched uranium if this country is to maintain its favourable position at present enjoyed in the world nuclear field.
I should like now to turn to the new Regulations themselves, the 1962 Regulations. The Nuclear Installations (Licensing and Insurance) Act, 1959, decreed that no nuclear reactor could be installed or operated without a nuclear


site licence granted by the Minister of Power, or in Scotland by the Secretary of State, and this licence when issued would have stringent and comprehensive safety conditions attached. This Act further provides that these Ministers may, by Regulation, widen the area of control to include installations designed or adapted for the production of atomic energy, to processes ancillary to the production of atomic energy, or to the storage of certain radioactive materials.
The intention is that the coverage of this Act should be so widened as to include only the cases where hazards similar in nature to those from the operation of a nuclear reactor may arise.
By the Nuclear Installation Regulations, 1960, the scope of the Act, as the hon. and learned Member for Kettering said, was extended to cover installations at which fuel elements of enriched uranium are produced or stored. No other installations called for control at that date. Since then further developments have taken place in the industry, and these have led to the new Regulations which are the subject of the Prayer.
The two main hazards against which safeguards must be provided in installations of the kind covered by the Regulations are first, criticality which would give rise to harmful radiations; and, second, the accidental release of fission products caused most probably by a fire involving irradiated nuclear fuel. This could, in the absence of adequate containment or filter equipment, result in radioactive material being discharged into the atmosphere.
So far as criticality is concerned, the only fissile material handled outside the Atomic Energy Authority is uranium, and since natural uranium presents no criticality hazard outside a reactor, we are concerned only with enriched uranium.
The Regulations bring under the cover of the Act four additional types of installation, none of which manufactures or stores fuel elements and is, therefore, not covered by the 1960 Regulations. If we look—

Mr. Mitchison: That being so, what possible difference is there between paragraph (b) at the end of the 1960 Regulations and paragraph (d) at the end of

these Regulations? They both refer to storage, and they both except storage incidental to carriage. I trust that in the light of that comment the hon. Gentleman will be able to do my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) the courtesy of replying to her as well as to me.

Mr. George: The 1960 Regulations dealt with fuel elements only and no fuel elements are involved in these Regulations.
If one looks at the Regulations themselves, one sees that under Regulation 3 (a), installations are covered where alloys or chemical compounds of enriched uranium are produced, but, as has been said, excluding processes purely incidental to chemical or isotopic assay; that is, very small quantities far below the criticality level used for experimental purposes only.
One new case will be covered at once—a research laboratory developing the manufacture of uranium carbide as a fuel for a future reactor under contract to the Atomic Energy Authority. So the Authority is using these private sources to help in the development of future reactors. This laboratory is equipped to handle enriched uranium on a scale which could involve the risk of criticality.
Secondly we have Regulation 3 (b). These are installations where enriched uranium is incorporated in test rigs designed for irradiation in a nuclear reactor. These rigs are elaborate assemblies designed to test the behaviour of nuclear fuel and other key components of future reactors. Significant quantities of nuclear fuel may be involved. One laboratory is preparing these test rigs now, and another will probably be manufacuring them in the near future, and both will come under this Regulation.
Thirdly, Regulation 3 (c) covers those installations comprising plant containing enriched uranium in which a controlled chain reaction can be maintained with an additional source of neutrons.
Sub-critical assemblies are assemblies which cannot become critical. These are attached to linear accelerators installed at universities for research purposes. They present no hazard and are not subject to control at the present


moment. But one firm proposes to replace the natural uranium used up to the present by enriched uranium, and because a small quantity of highly enriched uranium can form a critical mass, as the hon. and learned Member for Kettering pointed out, we consider that such assemblies containing enriched uranium should now be licensed. We are supported in this view by the Nuclear Safety Advisory Committee.
The last one—3 (d)—covers those installations where irradiated nuclear fuel is stored or processed. In general irradiated nuclear fuel is found only on licensed reactor sites or premises occupied by the Atomic Energy Authority. No person other than the Authority can extract plutonium or uranium from irradiated nuclear fuel, other than for the purpose of research, and a permit is required even for that. But research into physical and metallurgical properties of irradiated nuclear fuel elements not involving such extraction does not require a permit. One laboratory is engaged on this work, and although it handles only small quantities of irradiated fuel it is equipped to handle it on a scale which requires its operations to be controlled.
These are the objects of the new Regulations. I will now deal with the effects. They will bring within the ambit of the Act all activities being carried on at present, or Which are likely to start in the near future, which it is considered should be controlled on safety grounds. The main effects of bringing them under the Act will be, first, as the hon. and learned Member for Kettering painted out, that they will be licensable and, therefore, subject to the control of the Minister from the safety point of view. Secondly, the licensees will be absolutely liable for any injury or damage caused by ionising radiations emitted from anything on the licensed site. Thirdly, they will be required to make funds available, by insurance or otherwise, to meet claims for injury or damage up to an aggregate of £5 million. Fourthly, the discharge of any radioactive waste will be subject to authorisation by the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
The precautions flowing from the new Regulations are stringent, but safety in the nuclear field must be as absolute as is humanly possible. The prevention of an occurrence replaces the common aim elsewhere of preventing a recurrence. This is no reflection on the industry, which, as the hon. Member for Barnsley says, is completely conscious of its responsibilities and has a first-class record but, as Parliament intended, installations of this kind, as they arise, are brought under the Act in the interests of public safety.
The Inspectorate of Nuclear Installations is, I can assure the hon. Member for Barnsley and the hon. Lady the Member for Lanark, adequate to deal with its task at the moment. The complement has been fixed by my right hon. Friend at 34, and 26 are already employed and trained, while recruitment is still going on. Arrangements were made with the Atomic Energy Authority that certain assistance should be given on a large scale to begin with, but this has gradually declined as the Inspectorate has been strengthened.
The inspectorate itself, plus this assistance, ensures that the work is being carried out properly at the moment, and will continue to be after these Regulations are in force. The Inspectorate does a fairly wide job. It assesses the safety of proposed new installations or alterations to existing ones, and inspects them during construction, commissioning and operation. It concerns itself not only with the actual installations and buildings, but also with the way they are operated and maintained and the operations of safety procedures. Control is exercised through a system of formal approvals and consents issued in the Minister's name in accordance with the conditions attached to nuclear site licences. The prime concern of the inspectorate is the safety of the general public.

Mr. Mitchison: What about toxic gases?

Mr. George: Close liaison is maintained with the Factory Inspectorate and all other inspectors relative to the safety of installations. We believe that these Regulations are necessary, that they are acceptable to the industry and that they will ensure maximum safety.
The hon. and learned Member raised the question of berythium—stainless steel. This is used in connection with advanced gas cooled reactors and does not come under these Regulations. It will, as a result of more emphasis on stainless steel, require slightly more highly enriched uranium. I trust that, with that explanation, the Regulations will be allowed to pass by the House.

Question put and negatived.

Orders of the Day — PEEL HOSPITAL, SELKIRKSHIRE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]

11.30 p.m.

Commander C. E. M. Donaldson: I am very grateful for the opportunity, however late at night it may be, to raise a matter of principal importance in its effect both on my constituency and on the one adjacent thereto. Ever since 1951 I have taken an interest in the Peel Hospital, in my constituency, which, in effect, is the general hospital for Roxburghshire, Selkirkshire, Peebles-shire and Berwickshire. Therefore, what I have to say tonight not only affects my own constituency but part of Berwick and East Lothian.
This debate arises directly from the publication of the Hospital Plan for Scotland, which makes no mention, in the forecasts for the South-Eastern Region, of any change in the situation of the Peel Hospital, near Galashiels. I tabled a Question to the Secretary of State for Scotland on 7th February, asking why there was no mention of the Peel Hospital in the forecasted programmes for the ensuing ten years, and if the Secretary of State was satisfied that the present hospital is adequate and up to the standards required in the hospital service. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State replied that minor works are being undertaken as necessary, and stated his belief that the hospital is providing an adequate standard of service.
In a supplementary question I stressed the unfortunate siting of this hospital and the difficulty of obtaining and retaining staff therein, and inquired as to the

possibility of a properly sited hospital for the future. My right hon. Friend replied that he was bound to have regard to the views of the regional hospital board, and mentioned a sum exceeding £230,000 which had been spent on this hospital over the past ten years. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who is to reply to this debate, has in his possession a collection of newspaper cuttings of some volume from the Border newspapers. I am certain that he should by now be well aware of the disappointment and, indeed, anger of people living in the area encompassed by the Borders Hospital Board of Management.
In brief, Border folk are angry, and it is my duty to make it clear that they are not going to rest content with the present system whereby the Peel Hospital, as to its fabric, is on a basis of "mend and make do". It simply is not good enough for the Borders of Scotland. Dr. Kenneth McLay, the Chairman of the Borders Board of Management, has said this:
We are very disappointed, for we were hoping for a new hospital instead of Peel which, with its old wooden wards, is like a shanty town. For some time we have been telling the Regional Board that something must be done, but they say they have no money.
Dr. McLay also said:
The place is certainly sub-standard. In these conditions I think the work of the medical and surgical staff is outstanding, and I think they merit something better in the way of working conditions. What we desperately need is a new hospital for the Borders, not necessarily at Peel. Most of us think that it would be better to have it in Galashiels for the sake of attracting staff. The Medical Superintendent at Peel Hospital was shocked at the news—or lack of it—contained in the Hospital Plan for Scotland. Among other remarks, in expressing his amazement, he said this: 'Here at Peel the wards need re-roofing, and we will have to have some money spent on the hospital. For instance, we will have to have a spare ward for the patients when the re-roofing takes place'.
He went on to state that the Borders Board had been asked to submit proposals for a "make and mend" of the 220-bed Peel Hospital, in my constituency. I understand that the Secretary of State should take heed of the advice of the Regional Hospitals Board, but he should also take heed of the Borders Hospital Board which, after all, has the responsibility for the hospital needs of these four counties. That is what I am standing here to make clear to him.


Border people are just not prepared to continue to lake this situation lying down.
Let me be positive. What is really required is a centrally sited hospital completely modern; and, whatever is left out of the present plan, it is high time to be thinking of the present necessities and how to meet those necessities in future. I cannot accept that the buildings of the Peel Hospital are up to modern standards. There is strong evidence to prove my point. I have here a letter from a constituent who was recently discharged from Peel Hospital following an operation. This lady is in fact the matron of another hospital in the Borders. While in Peel she had certain privileges which added to her comfort, but under no circumstances would she consider going back into Peel Hospital and she has increased her private subscription to the Hospital Society against such a thing happening again. This constituent was in Peel Hospital three years ago and it is her view that the conditions have worsened. They have worsened, in her opinion, largely because of the location and lack of amenities for the staff, which is very depleted at present. She states:
Nobody had time to wash me after an abdominal operation. I was from the first left to wash myself. In every way the staff carry out their essential duties, but, being a nurse myself. I would say that they have no time to be real nurses, by which I mean giving to the patient that which a nurse gives to her patients".
This matron was appalled at the closeness of the beds to one another and the total lack of privacy. She said:
The toilets, kitchens and sluices are all gathered at the outside end of the ward and leave very much to be desired.
She went on to say:
Being placed as I was at the end of the ward at the door I received a whiff of every bed pan that came up.
Surely this is both disgusting and disgraceful. Does anyone suggest to me that these conditions represent a standard of capacity and efficiency in a modern hospital? The Secretary of State will long since have received from a number of Border burgh councils resolutions addressed to him. I need not repeat them now, but my hon. Friend must ask our right hon. Friend to read and consider them with some sympathy. I understand that some years ago there

was an option on a site somewhere at St. Boswells for a possible new hospital. Am I right in thinking that that option lapsed?
I also ask my hon. Friend if the Department has—or if not, if it will seek—an option on a site for a new hospital in the Galashiels area with a view to the future. A hospital so situated would have great advantages both from the point of view of amenities for the staff and from the point of view of more easy access for out-patients and visitors. People from Kelso have to take three separate bus trips to reach the Peel Hospital—it is a day's journey there and back. A hospital centrally located in Galashiels would be on a line of direct approach by bus routes from all the Border burghs. I urge in the strongest possible terms that such a site should be sought on option forthwith.
In support of this, I have in my hand a letter from the Hon. Secretary of the Scottish Rural Women's Institutes for the Counties of Roxburghshire, Selkirkshire and Berwickshire. The letter represents the strong views of some 3,000 women. Time does not permit me to give the full details now, but the big point they make is the siting of the Peel Hospital and there are five other important points relating to the hospital as it now is. In brief, they are as follows: first, the lack of side wards for seriously ill patients; secondly, the noisy and disturbing apparatus used in the wards, which is due to the first point; thirdly, the beds are too crowded together; fourthly, lack of privacy, sometimes amounting to positive indecency; and, fifthly, a matter to which I have already referred, bad toilet facilities for "up" patients in the women's wards.
There are also other matters, details of which I will send to my hon. Friend, concerning a proposal that in future girls wishing to become nurses must first hold the new Scottish Certificate of Education. The Borders Hospital Board of Management has studied the records of Peel Nurse Training School and an analysis shows that of the nurses successful in the final State Examination, approximately 75 per cent. left school at or before the age of 15 and of the remainder only roughly half attained a proven standard of education equivalent to the new certificate. Surely


this must show my hon. Friend that the new qualification is unnecessary. But the most important point about it is that Peel Hospital will be almost without new nurses if this new condition is brought in.
Let me sum up, and reiterate the anger which is felt in my three counties and adjoining. Let me emphasise once more the necessity to plan for a new site for a new hospital, and let me add that whatever the expenditure of £230,000 has achieved in the past ten years, it appears that a great sum of money will be required to maintain even the low standard of the building during the next ten years. It is high time that my constituents and those in Berwickshire had some reassurance from the Secretary of State that their views will be considered and not only the exclusive opinions of the South-East Regional Board, which appears to be remote from the feelings and the necessities of the area for which I have been speaking.
I ask my hon. Friend to be sure of this neither I nor the people I represent will rest content until some positive action is taken in the matter of Peel Hospital.

11.42 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): I listened with sympathy to the case which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Commander Donaldson) put before the House tonight. We all know the close attention which he always gives to all that concerns his constituents, and it is not surprising, therefore, that he should seek to have a discussion tonight on the future of Peel Hospital.
My hon. and gallant Friend has told us in his usual forthright way of the strong feelings which exist in his constituency, and I can well understand how disappointing it must be to him and to those who live in the Borders to learn that they are not have a new general hospital in the immediate future. I hope, however, to be able to persuade him that this is the right decision, fairly taken, and that, however much we should have liked to meet his point of view, there are other demands on the hospital service Which should have even higher priority than Peel in the great

hospital building programme which has just been announced.
As my hon. and gallant Friend knows, the plan covers the ten years 1961 to 1971. In formulating the plan it was first necessary to decide, against the background of the need for hospital services, how much building we could reasonably expect to do during this period. As my hon. and gallant Friend appreciates, hospitals are only one of many services, such as housing, schools and roads, which make considerable demands on the capital investment programme. For the present, therefore, we are planning to spend £70 million on hospital building over the next ten years, but although this represents a very substantial increase on what was spent in the last ten years, it obviously is not enough to replace all the 400 hospitals which exist in Scotland at the same time. Therefore, accepting that even the greatly increased sums available for hospitals are not sufficient to replace everything at once, it is clear that a choice had to be made as to which would go into the plan.
In making a choice three factors had to be borne in mind. The first was the sheer age of the hospital. The second was the extent to which an area was not well served when the National Health Service came into operation. The third was the need to provide hospitals for areas with new and growing populations. I mention these factors because they form the background to the decision taken by the Regional Hospital Board, and they explain the priorities given to certain types of hospital in different areas.
As for age, the biggest decision of all was the decision to replace some of the main teaching hospitals and to make substantial improvements in others. This was a very expensive decision since a new teaching hospital can cost up to £9 million, but it is a decision in which the Secretary of State agrees entirely with the Regional Hospital Board because it is the quality of the teaching hospitals which sets the tone throughout the whole of the rest of the service.
As to areas which were not well served when the National Health Service took over, Fife is one of the worst. For example, there was no sizeable general hospital at all there, and the Regional


Hospital Board decided to provide a new one at Kirkcaldy. This process of bringing up what one might call the black areas nearer to the average level has obviously had to have priority over many other things, such as Peel Hospital, and it has obviously used up the money.
There are, also, the expanding areas, and this explains the replacement of Bangour Hospital which, like Peel Hospital, is one of the E.M.S. hospitals. People living in the area may wonder why a decision has been made to replace Bangour rather than Peel, since both are of the same age. A deciding factor was the new development in West Lothian. First there was the new B.M.C. development at Bathgate, and then the decision to build a new town at Livingston.
Given these priorities and the choices—choices made by a Regional Board that represents the whole area—there was no room within the programme for another large new hospital for the Borders.
So far I have been giving the background in explaining the priorities, but now I turn to Peel Hospital itself and I will try to answer some of the questions which my hon. and gallant Friend raised. I should not like to leave any impression that we consider that Peel Hospital is not doing a satisfactory job, for, in common with other E.M.S. hospitals, it has rendered and is still rendering a magnificent service to the people of the area. My hon. and gallant Friend referred to finance. A good deal of money has been spent on Peel Hospital to keep it in reasonable condition, to enable it to undertake new tasks and to improve the working conditions of the staff. Over the last fourteen years about £230,000 has been spent on the hospital, but that figure is only about one-seventh of what a new hospital would cost and, no matter how new a hospital is, money must still be spent on maintaining it. That is often forgotten. My hon. and gallant Friend referred to the lavatories at Peel Hospital. He will be glad to know that a scheme for improving all of the sanitary annexes there is in

progress and is well on the way to completion.
Peel is not the only E.M.S. still in use. There are others, for example, the hospitals at Law, Ballochmyle and Stracathro. These, too, have rendered, and are rendering, excellent service. While I concede immediately that Peel Hospital is not conveniently situated for the population it serves, I would resist any implication that the hospital in itself does not provide a service which compares well with the general hospital services being provided in other hospitals in Scotland.
My hon. and gallant Friend raised what is really an ancillary point to do with the educational qualifications for entry as trainee nurses. I will certainly consider what he said. As to the difference of opinion between the Board of Management and the Regional Hospital Board, it is often the case that a board of management will see things from its own point of view while a regional hospital board will take a wider view. I hope, by what I have said tonight, that I have put the problem of Peel in its proper perspective. Three of the Regional Hospital Board's members live within the Borders.
As to the future, all I can say is that, of course, all these E.M.S. hospitals cannot go on for ever. Good though they are and good service though they have given, they will need to be replaced in due course, but the need in this particular case is not such that it can have sufficient priority to merit the treatment my hon. and gallant Friend requires.
I can assure the Regional Hospital Board and my hon. and gallant Friend that my right hon. Friend will certainly look sympathetically at the needs of the Border area when the next stage of the continuing—and I emphasise this fact—hospital plan comes to be considered. When this time comes and an assessment is made of the relative merits, the points that have been so persuasively and forcefully put by my hon. and gallant Friend will be kept very much in mind.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes to Twelve o'clock.